KARANPAL SINGH,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD 2(5), KHATAULI

1. “That the A.O. has not justify in passing to order on same date same DCR No. in which address of the assessee is different. CIT(A) dismiss the appeal in a casual manner exparty.

That on merit also A.O. has not justified that sufficient cash was available in the form of advance of plot and sale transaction. A.O. also not considered bank withdrawal reflecting in bank account. Therefore, addition made by A.O. is not justify & CIT(A) is also silent on this facts. 3. That the assessee has right to add, delete or modify any grounds of appeal

On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee has been negligent throughout the proceedings and did not appear before the lower authorities.

We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the authorities below have passed ex-parte order. Looking to the facts placed on record, we are of the considered view that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of representation. We therefore, set aside the impugned order and restore the assessment to the file of Assessing Authority to frame assessment afresh after giving adequate opportunity of representation to the assessee. It is further directed that the assessee would not seek any adjournment without any reasonable cause. The assessee would also file any evidence as sought by the AO promptly. Grounds raised by the assessee are thus, allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. [Assessment Year : 2009-10] 10. Now, we take assessee’s appeal in penalty proceedings wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

That Ld. CIT(A) dismiss the appeal without considering the facts mention above. 3. That the assessee has right to add, delete or modify any grounds of appeal during the proceedings.”

Brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued notices to the assessee. The notices so issued were not complied by the assessee. Therefore, the AO imposed penalty of INR 10,000/- u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance of notices.

Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred the appeal before this Tribunal.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that before the lower authorities, it was stated that the notices were issued at a wrong address. Therefore, compliance could not be made on behalf of the assessee. He submitted that there was reasonable cause for not responding to notices.

On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the authorities below have rejected the plea of the assessee and sustained the penalty. Ld. Sr. DR strongly relied on the findings of Ld.CIT(A).

We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. In quantum proceedings in [Assessment Year 2017-18], we have restored the assessment to the file of AO for decision afresh. However, looking to the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that the assessee had given a reasonable explanation which the authorities below ought to have verified but without verifying the correctness of the claim of the assessee, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Therefore, looking to the totality of the present case, there was reasonable cause which prevented the assessee to comply the notices issued by the AO. We hereby, direct the AO to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee. Grounds raised by the assessee are thus, allowed.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.