SH. SURINDER SINGH WARAICH,CANADA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PATIALA

The main grievance of the assessee in the present appeal relates to the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi in violation of principles of natural justice.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee had filed his return of income declaring income of Rs. 1,50,220/- in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act on 03/05/2018. Thereafter notice under section 142(1) was issued calling for information and notice under section 143(2) of the Act has been issued. The assessee has submitted the requisite information as called for. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assesssee was asked to explain the cash deposit of Rs. 38,65,600/-. In response the assessee filed its reply dt. 209/2018. The reply were considered but not found acceptable to the AO and the total income amounting to Rs. 40,15,820/- was assessed by the AO 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer by passing the ex-parte order.

Now the assessee is in appeal before us.

The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing the ex-parte order and confirming arbitrary addition made by the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the assessee has since shifted to Canada and has not received the notices, hence, the same couldn’t be responded to. It was submitted that the assessee be provided an opportunity to represent his case on merits and the matter may accordingly be set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A).

In his rival submissions, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. At the same time, it was fairly submitted that the Revenue has no objection where the matter is set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A) to decide the same on merits of the case.

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) simply stated that the assessee has not made any argument in the present proceedings on the basis of which the ground can be allowed and the assessee has clearly failed to discharge his basic burden of proof. Given that the assessee was unable to respond to the notices in view of the admitted position that he has shifted to Canada, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we believe that the assessee deserve one more opportunity to represent his case and deem it appropriate to set aside the case back to the file of Ld.