JAI PRAKASH VERMA,,BALLIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD - 2 (4),, BALLIA

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 5.11.2019 of ld. CIT(A), Varanasi for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “

1. Service of notice u/s 148 was not proper (Never Received).

2. Order passed is without providing me reasonable opportunity to be heard.

3. Order passed u/s 147 is time barred. I have not yet received copy of order. I had none f the business other than Govt. service. Contention of investment to the tune of Rs.42,92,000/- was total wrong as in my account no such transaction has been taken place justifying investment of Rs.42.95 lakh.”

2. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed an ex-parte order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act which was challenged by the assessee before the ld. ld. CIT(A), however, the ld. ld. CIT(A) without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned ex-parte order. The ld. AR of the assessee has pointed out that the alleged notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) were not received by the assessee and some of the notices were received after the date of hearing and when the assessee tried to file its reply it was not taken on record. Thus, ld. AR has submitted that the assessee may be granted one more opportunity of hearing to present its case before the Assessing Officer.

3. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has neither filed any return of income u/s. 139 of the Act nor in responded to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee has not responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and consequently the Assessing Officer has passed the ex-parte assessment order based on the material available with the Assessing Officer. He has further submitted that the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s. 148 on the basis of information of deposits of Rs.42,92,000/- made in the bank account of assessee. Since the assessee has not furnished any explanation regarding the source of deposits in the bank therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition as an unexplained cash deposit. The ld. ld. CIT(A) has issued various notices to the assessee but the assessee has not responded to any of the notices nor made any appearance before the ld. ld. CIT(A), therefore, the impugned order was passed confirming 3 ITA No.07/Vns/2020 the action of the Assessing Officer. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 4. I have considered the rival submissions as well as perused the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). There is no dispute that the assessee has not filed any return of income u/s. 139 or in response to the notices u/s. 148 of the Act. The ld. AR has submitted that the assessee has not received notices issued by the authorities below. So far as the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, there is nothing on record to show that the assessee has not received those notices, however from the impugned order of the ld. ld. CIT(A) it is clear that the notices was issued just one week prior to the date of hearing and therefore, the possibility of receiving the notices after the date of hearing cannot be ruled out. The ld. ld. CIT(A) has given the details of the notices in para 2 as under:

2. In this case notices dated 27.8.2019, 26.9.2019, 9.10.2019 and 21.10.2019 were issued fixing the case for 4.9.2019, 3.10.2019, 17.10.2019 and 4.11.2019. However, in compliance to these notices neither anybody attended the proceedings nor any adjournment application was filed.