IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Delhi Bench "SMC", New Delhi
BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 3884/Del/2018
Shri. Rajendra Singh, 162, Vs. ITO, Ward-3(3),
Devi Pura, Bulandshahr, Bulandshahr
Assessee by: Sh. Vaibhav Gupta, CA
Respondent by: Sh. Surendra Meena, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing: 04 10 2018
Date of Pronouncement: 09 10 2018
N.K. SAINI, A.M:
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 28.03.2018
of the learned CIT(A), Ghaziabad. Following grounds have been raised in this
"1. The Ld. Assessing Officer was erred in taking share of the assessee at
9.5% instead of 7.5%.
2. That the Ld. Assessing Officer was erred in making an addition of Rs.
3,13,170/- on account of unexplained source of investment.
3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was erred in not
taking into consideration the order of Ld. Assessing Officer Ward-3(1),
Bulandshahr who has taken the share of co-partner at the rate of 7.5%.
4. That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Ld.
Assessing Officer Ward-3(3), Bulandshahr is against law and facts and facts
of the case and based on surmises and conjecture.
ITA No. 3884/Del/2018 2
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the AO on the basis of AIR
information issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the
assessee. In response the assessee filed the return of income on 27.5.2016
declaring an income of Rs. 40,000/-. The AO, however made the addition of Rs.
3,13,170/- by observing that the assessee failed to explain the exact source of
investment and also could not produce any supportive material. Being
aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the learned CIT(A) who dismissed
the appeal by passing the ex parte order.
3. Now the assessee is in appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned
CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without providing due and reasonable
opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter may be restored to the
learned CIT(A). In his rival submissions, the learned Sr. DR supported the
impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A).
5. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused
the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the
learned CIT(A) mentioned in para 4.1 of the impugned order that the case was
fixed for hearing on 19.3.2018 and the assessee filed adjournment application,
the case was adjourned to 26.3.2018. However, it is not clear as to whether
the said date of hearing was communicated to the assessee. I, therefore, deem
it appropriate to 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.
6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
ITA No. 3884/Del/2018 3
(Order pronounced in the open court on 09.10.2018.)
Copy forwarded to:-
5. DR: ITAT
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
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