IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Delhi Bench "SMC", New Delhi
BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 4065/Del/2018
A.Y.: 2013-14
Pramod Panday Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New
B-67, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-55
Delhi
[Appellant] [Respondent]
Assessee by: None
Respondent by: Sh. Surendra Meena, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing: 04 10 2018
Date of Pronouncement: 09 10 2018
ORDER
N.K. SAINI, A.M:
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 21.03.2018
of the learned CIT(A)-27, New Delhi. During the course of hearing, nobody was
present on behalf of the assessee. Neither any adjournment was sought, I,
therefore, proceeded ex parte and the appeal is decided after hearing the
learned Sr. DR.
2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal:-
"1. The CIT(A) ought to have not passed the order "ex parte".
2. The addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act is wrong and is
opposed to evidences on record.
3. The transactions of Rs. 5,00,000/- alleged to be dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of
ITA No. 4065/Del/2018 2
the Act, being transactions entered into in the course of business and for the
purposes of business, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not
applicable at all.
2. Vide ground no. 1, the grievance of the assessee relates to the ex
parte order passed by the learned CIT(A). Facts of the case in brief are that the
assessee filed return of income on 31.7.2013 declaring an income of Rs.
30,82,910/-. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO made the
addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- by making the disallowance u/s 2(22)(e) of the
Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the `Act). Being aggrieved the
assessee carried the matter to the learned CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal ex
parte for want of prosecution.
4. Now the assessee is in appeal.
5. The learned Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. In
the present case, it is noticed that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of
the assessee ex parte for non prosecution without discussing the case on
merit. He simply stated that the notices issued for fixing the dates of hearing
were either not complied with or adjournments were sought by the assessee
by making excuses. However, nothing is brought on record to substantiate that
there was no reasonable cause while seeking the adjournment. It is also not
brought on record as to whether the notices issued were served upon the
assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per
the maxim "Audi Alteram Partem". I, therefore, by keeping in view the
principles of natural justice remit this case back to the file of the learned CIT(A)
to be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due and
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes.
ITA No. 4065/Del/2018 3
(Order pronounced in the open court on 09.10.2018.)
Sd/-
[N.K. SAINI]
Accountant Member
DATED: 09.10.2018
SH
Copy forwarded to:-
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
Assistant Registrar
Date
1. Draft dictated on 4.10.2018 PS
2. Draft placed before author 5.10.2018 PS
3. Draft proposed & placed before the second JM/AM
member
4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM/AM
5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS PS/PS
6. Kept for pronouncement on PS
7. File sent to the Bench Clerk PS
8. Date on which file goes to the AR
9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
10. Date of dispatch of Order.
11. Date of uploading .10.2018
|
