NARESH KUMAR JAIN (HUF),DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, DELHI

Since common grievance is involved in the captioned appeals and pertain to same assessee, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

Brief facts are that this is a case of a HUF. The return of income of the assessee for the assessment year in question was filed on 16.01.2017 declaring an income of Rs.8,48,090/-. The case of the assessee was assessed u/s 153C of the Act on 11.12.2018 wherein the returned income of the assessee was accepted after considering the submissions of the assessee. Now, the assessment has been made u/s 147 of the Act on 13.03.2022 wherein addition of Rs. 46,53,485/- has been made as under: • Rs. 43,90,081/- on account of treating the LTCG from sale of share as income from other sources u/s 68 of The Income Tax Act, 1961. • Rs. 2,63,404/- on account of acquiring accommodation entry as undisclosed expenditure u/s 69C of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Against the impugned addition, the assessee had filed an appeal before CIT(A) which has been dismissed by the CIT(A) on ex-parte basis.

Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that both the assessment made by the Assessing Officer and sustaining the said additions by the ld. CIT(A) is on ex-parte basis. The ld AR assailed the CIT(A) order that it did not consider that there is no live nexus between the reasons recorded and the belief formed by the Assessing Officer. The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that the re- assessment proceedings were initiated without approval of the competent authority as required u/s 151 of the Act which is bad in the eyes of law and based on borrowed satisfaction. It was, therefore, prayed that the ld. CIT(A) be declared as bad in law. 6. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. In view of the above facts and circumstances that the reassessment and the appeal being decided on ex-parte basis, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of being