KRISHAN DYAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUDHIANA

“That order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Ludhiana is against law and facts on the file in as much as Learned CIT(A) was not justified to decide the appeal of the appellant ex-parte.

That the Learned CIT(Appeals) was not justified to decide the appeal ex-parte without ensuring that the notice of appeal was properly served on the appellant. All the notices were sent at email- rajpalgupta87@yahoo.com with which the appellant had no connection.

That Learned CIT(Appeals) gravely erred in upholding the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer at Rs. 35,00,000/- out of cash sale of Rs. 36,04,462/- by resort to the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That Learned CIT(Appeals) gravely erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in levying tax by resort to provisions of Section 115BBE.”

At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 43 days as pointed out by the Registry. In this regard, during the course of hearing, the Ld. AR drawn our reference to the condonation application alongwith an affidavit filed by the assessee. It was submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) has been passed on 31/01/20024 and assessee only came to know about the said decision after he received a letter dt. 25/04/2024 from ITO, Ward-2(1), Ludhiana for deposit of the outstanding demand and as soon as the assessee received a copy of the order, he filed the present appeal on 13/05/2024. It was submitted that the email id stated in Form No. 35 for receiving all the communication from the office of the Ld. CIT(A) was mentioned as krishnikaa@hotmail.com however all the notices were sent by the office of Ld. CIT(A) at rajpalgupta87@yahoo.com with which the assessee has no connection. It was accordingly submitted that all the notices and even the order was not served on the assessee and therefore the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the present appeal within the prescribed period. It was accordingly prayed that the delay caused in filing the present appeal be condoned and appeal be adjudicated on merits.

The Ld. DR was heard who has not raised specific objection regarding the submission made by the Ld. AR and the contents of the Affidavit so filed by the assessee were not disputed.

After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on the record, we are of the considered view that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present appeal due to not receipt of the order so passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

On merits, the Ld. AR submitted that since notices were not served on the assessee and were sent on the wrong email id, the assessee was prevented from making the necessary submissions before the ld CIT(A) which has resulted in passing of an ex-parte order without even considering the merits of the case. It was accordingly submitted that the assessee be allowed an opportunity to represent his case and matter may accordingly be set aside to the file of the Ld CIT(A).

Per contra, the Ld. DR did not raised any specific objection where the matter is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on the record, given the fact that the order has been passed ex-parte qua the assessee and there are no findings recorded on merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh as per law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/07/2024 (JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG

""यथ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"/ CIT 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च"डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड" फाईल/ Guard File