AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA [A. M]:
The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.02.2019, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)), under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessment order in this appeal dated 15.12.2016 is passed by the Assessing Officer [for short, AO] under section 147/144 of the Act.
At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assessee was not granted effective opportunity of being heard and the assessment was framed ex-parte, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) again ex-parte.
Per Contra, the ld. DR did not raise any serious objection.
We find that the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order. We find that the ld. CIT(A) granted opportunities and on account of non-appearance of the assessee, passed the order thereafter ex-parte. We are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) should have given adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain its case. We therefore, in the interest of the principle of natural justice, set-aside the issue of addition u/s 68 of the Act, to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to accord the assessee three effective opportunities to furnish the requisite explanation. Needless to say that the assessee would participate and furnish evidences/documents as and when required by the Ld. CIT(E).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.