Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
आदेश/Order
Per A.D. Jain, Vice President:
This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 09.03.2023, for the Assessment Year 2012-13, raising the following grounds of Appeal:
1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer with regard to order passed u/s 144/147.
284-Chd-2023-– Krishan Lal, Sangrur 2 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in conforming the action of learning assessing officer by issuing notice u/s 148 without going to the facts of the case and even no notice has been served upon the appellant.
3. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in by conforming the action of the learning assessing officer notice issued u/s 148 being cash deposit in bank is void in the eye of law
That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by conforming the action of learning assessing officer by issue notice u/s 148 without verifying the facts of the case that how much cash was deposit in bank , where as cash of Rs. 10,06,000/ was deposited and notice was issued for Rs.20,12,000/-.
5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in conforming the action of learning assessing officer by adding a sum of Rs. 20,12,000/ in a surmise manner.
At the outset, it has been submitted by the ld. Counsel of the Assessee that the foremost grievance of the Assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the order dated 09.03.2023 u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'); that the notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act without going into the facts of the case and that even no notice had been served upon the Assessee; that the notice issued u/s 148 being for cash deposited in the bank is void in the eye of law
284-Chd-2023-– Krishan Lal, Sangrur 3 without verifying the facts that how much cash was deposited in the bank; that the ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer by adding a sum of Rs. 20,12,000/- in a surmisical manner; and that as such, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without going into the merits of the case, is bad in law. It is submitted that the Assessee has a reasonable explanation and fair case on merits and, therefore, prayed that keeping in view the principles of natural justice, the Assessee may be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing of the appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and the appeal may be directed to be decided on merits.
The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
4. Heard. We have gone through the order of the ld. CIT (A) and find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by merely confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer, relying on some case laws without considering the facts of the case, material available on record, and also without going into the merits of the case. The plea taken by the Assessee that no notice was ever served upon the Assessee has not been refuted by the ld. DR. The Assessee had raised Ground No. 2.2 in this regard before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), however, has not adjudicated the same. As such, an opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the Assessee to 284-Chd-2023-– Krishan Lal, Sangrur 4 represent his case fully before the ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.)] and incumbent on the authority to decide an appeal on merit in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Though the ld. D.R. has placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below, she has no objection if the matter is remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh.
In view of the above, in the interest of justice, the matter is remitted to the file of the CIT(A), to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.
In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 02.04.2024.