Ramesh Kumar Verma (HUF) vs ITO

This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 06.02.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-14, New Delhi for the assessment year 2015-16.

The basic grievance of assessee is against ex parte disposal of its appeal by learned first appellate authority.

We have heard Shri Anand Chaudhari, learned authorized representative of the assessee and Shri Shankar Gupta, learned Departmental Representative.

Briefly, the facts are, assessee is a resident hindu undivided family. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 22.08.2015, declaring income of Rs.9,73,720. While completing the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2017, the Assessing Officer made the following additions:

i) Addition on account of unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act.

Rs.91,90,707

ii) Addition on account of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Act.

Rs. 2,75,721

As a result, the income declared by assessee was enhanced to Rs.1,04,40,150. Against the assessment order so passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, by the impugned order, learned Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex parte by confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Having considered rival submissions and perused material available on record, we find, in response to the hearing notices issued by learned first appellate authority, assessee sought more time to furnish its reply along with supporting evidences. However, the request of the assessee to grant more time was rejected by learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that information in relation to queries put to the assessee are available in public domain and secondly, on the basis of similar facts, learned first appellate authority has decided an appeal in case of another assessee. Accordingly, he proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex parte and confirmed the additions. Facts on record reveal that there was no deliberate intention of the assessee to delay the proceedings before learned first appellate authority. Therefore, in our view, learned Commissioner (Appeals) should have granted reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish his reply with supporting evidences. Merely because, certain informations are available in public domain and a similar case has been disposed of, cannot be a ground to deny reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter back to him for de novo adjudication on merits after due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.