AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 25.01.2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18.
The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:
“That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in disposing of the appeal without granting the appellant a proper and effective opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
2 That the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law and liable to be set aside as the appellant was neither given afforded sufficient time/opportunity to represent its case adequately. The appellate order has been passed in undue haste and in the absence of representation from the appellant, rendering it arbitrary and unsustainable m law
3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant respectfully submits that the appeal has been Bled within the period prescribed under the Income Tax Act. 1961, and hence there is no delay in filing the same
4 That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of 23,94,750 made by the Assessing Officer, which ought to have been deleted considering appreciate the legal position emerging from and rule of law laid down in various judicial pronouncements
5 The Appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal.”
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure proceedings u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] was carried out on the Alankit Group, Sh. Ashok K Agarwal, his son Ankit Agarwal and some of the close associates and key employees of Shri Alok K Agarwal on 18.10.2019. During the course of search, certain incriminating documents were found and seized to suggest that the searched person was engaged in providing accommodation entries to various parties including Shri Bhaskar Behera. Thereafter, notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued for the A.Ys 2010-11 to 2020-21.
The Assessing Officer, accordingly, passed assessment order on 31/03/2024. However, the said order was never served on the assessee through any valid mode prescribed under the Act. Due to non-receipt of the order, the assessee was unaware of the contents of the order and made repeated follow-ups with the department. It was only on 11.6.2024 that the assessee received the assessment order for the first time. Immediately thereafter, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) within one day of actual service of order.
The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay despite being provided opportunity.
Now the assessee is aggrieved and has come in appeal before us.
Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte order without providing reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that because of the extremely short gap between the notice of hearing and coupled with the fact that only one notice was issued, the principles of natural justice were violated as the ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order without granting proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We are of the considered view that the CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Considering the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to provide necessary information/documents as required by the authorities.
In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 3317/DEL/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes.