SHRI LAKHWINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 3 (2) , AMRITSAR

The present case, has been fixed for hearing on 29.11.2021, 22.12.2021 and 01/03/2022, and none appeared for the assessee on the said dates of hearing, even though in ground no. 4 the appellant challenged the impugned order on not allowing it proper opportunity of Assessment Year: 2011-12 being heard. Accordingly, we adjudicate the appeal on the limited issue of grant of opportunity in view of principles of Natural justice.

The appellant assessee has filed return of income declaring net profit of � 162,500 and the rate of 25% of gross business receipts of � 650,000. The appellant argued before the Ld CIT appeal that total cash deposits in the bank account were � 17,80 1964 as against � 18,737,190 as taken by the AO. The learned CIT appeal has reduced opening balance in interbank transferred and computed the correct cash credits to the tomb of � 14,206,058 and computed profit rate of 25% which comes to � 3,551,515. Thus, the CIT appeal has restricted the addition to � 3,369,015 as against the addition of � 3,672,821 made by the AO after allowing credit of the return income and the difference in cash to projects in bank accounts. However, CIT appeal has not granted the opportunity by of show cause notice to the assessing in rebuttal to the such confirmation of the net profit income from the working of cash deposits in bank accounts.

Per contra, the Ld. CIT(DR) stands by the impugned order and contended that the CIT(A) has computed correct receipt of cash credits in the bank and estimated profit @ 25% as shown by the assessee in the return of the income. He contended that the impugned order be sustained.

We have heard the Ld. CIT(DR) and perused the record carefully. It is admitted fact that the appellant has assailed the impugned order on account of inadequate opportunity of being heard and decided the appeal in violation of principles of natural justice. It is apparently clear that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue referring written submission furnished before him by the ld. AR for the assessee and confirmed the finding of the AO. While arriving at the adverse conclusions, the Ld.

The appellant contention that rejection of an appeal without considering the submissions and documentary evidence filed on record without proper opportunity is against the principles of natural justice.It is seen that it was only due to inadequate opportunity that the necessary material evidence by way of documentary evidence could not be filed by the assesee before the CIT(A).

The contention of the ld. AR that details required by the CIT(A) were available with the assessee but the same could not be furnished due to lack of sufficient opportunity granted to the assessee sounds logical, reasonable and justified. Considering the ld. AR contention as per grounds of appeal and submission file before CIT(A), the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in making submission before the ld. CIT(A) in absence of sufficient opportunity of being heard to produce the necessary documents as per principles of natural justice.We consider it deem fit to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to examine the issue of estimation profit on the cash credits in the bank afresh, as per law, after taking into consideration the material evidence on record and to be filed in the course of fresh proceedings after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, as per principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the case is restored to the CIT(A), for afresh consideration and adjudication of the appeal of the assessee with the following observation:

In result, the appeal is treated allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated as above.