Suresh Pandey, Faizabad vs Assessee

Suresh Pandey v. Income Tax Officer-2 3/1/66, Niyawan Faizabad Faizabad TAN/PAN:AKRPP3184B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by: Shri. B. P. Yadav, Cost Accountant Respondent by: Shri. Punit Kumar, D.R. Date of hearing: 27 04 2015 Date of pronouncement: 30 04 2015

ORDER

PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), inter alia, on the following grounds:-

1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-l, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in passing exparte order without appreciating that the assessment order passed u/s 147/144 of the I.T. Act was barred by limitation.

2. On the facts stated in the statement of facts, the Ld. CIT(A) was not at all justified in confirming the additions of Rs.15,57,000/-

made by the Ld. A.O in the hands of the appellant by observing that the cash deposits in the bank account were unexplained.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not providing the appellant proper, adequate or sufficient opportunity to have it say or make necessary compliances of the reasons relied upon by the Ld. A.O. in making addition in his hands. :-2-:

2. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal ex-parte without affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. counsel for the assessee has further contended that on account of change of address, notice of hearing could not be served upon the assessee. He has also invited our attention to the assessment order with the submission that the Assessing Officer has also passed an ex-parte order, therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored back to the file of the ld.

CIT(A) for adjudication of the grounds raised before him. It was further contended that this assessment is also barred by limitation, but this aspect was not examined by the lower authorities.

3. The ld. D.R. has simply placed reliance upon the order of the ld. CIT(A).

4. Having carefully examined the order of the ld. CIT(A), we find that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal ex-parte in the absence of the assessee. We are, therefore, of the view that one more opportunity should be afforded to the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to re-adjudicate the appeal afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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

Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the captioned page.

Sd/- Sd/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

DATED: 30th April, 2015 :-3-:

JJ:2704

Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR Assistant Registrar