PINKI GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD -2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee has e-filed the return of income declaring an income of Rs.3,45,300/- and has claimed long term capital gains exempt income of Rs.60,40,332/- u/s 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). On the basis of information received and on the belief that an income of Rs.45,40,900/- had escaped assessment, the AO initiated re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 was issued. The AO made an addition of Rs.45,40,900/- treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal ex parte qua the assessee.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine, without providing proper opportunity of being heard, as assessee had sufficient cause that prevented the assessee from appearing on the date of hearing inasmuch as no notice of hearing was received at the address for communication given in appeal memo. It was also submitted that the jurisdictional ground was not considered at all by the ld. CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) also erred in not appreciating the fact that the ld. AO passed the order mechanically/hurriedly without providing adequate opportunity and without considering the objection raised/material placed. It was, therefore, submitted that another opportunity of hearing may be provided to the assessee before the ld.CIT(A).

On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed the submissions of the assessee and supported the orders of the authorities below. He contended that the assessee should not be given the benefit of his own negligence.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the ld.CIT(A) has passed the orders ex parte qua the assessee. It is the contention of the assessee that the assessee had not received the notice of hearing. Therefore, looking to the facts available on record and also in view of the principles of natural justice, I set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh, after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.