DARSHAN SINGH, LUDHIANA V. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD VI(1), LDH, LUDHIANA

ITA 319/CHANDI/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 129 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0170 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2024

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अधकरण,चडीगढ़ यायपीठ, चडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B” CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No 319/CHD/2024 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Darshan Singh, House No.341-C, Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana. Vs The Assessing Officer, Ward VI(I), Ludhiana. थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: DYVPS0325A अपीलाथ/Appellant यथ/Respondent नधारती क ओर से/Assessee by: Shri Rajeev Kaushal, CA राजव क ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr.DR स ु नवाई क तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 28.08.2024 उदघोषणा क तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 03.09.2024 HYBRID HEARING आदेश/Order PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Pune, dated 31.01.2024 pertaining to 2012-13 assessment year. 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) to submit that the same is an ex-parte order. He has ITA No.319/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 2 submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has rejected the application of the assessee without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present its case. He has further submitted that as also stated in Ground No.1, an application for adjournment was filed on 31.01.2024, but the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the same and passed an ex-parte order on 31.01.2024 and upheld the addition of Rs.32,40,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also requested that the additional evidence may be admitted under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, in the interest of natural justice. 4. The ld. DR relied upon the impugned order. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We have found that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of non-compliance of the notices issued by the office of the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee did not file the requisite details and evidences regarding the nature and the sources of cash deposits in his bank account. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to plead his case and to file the requisite evidence and documents etc. Accordingly, we are of the ITA No.319/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 3 considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given opportunity to plead his case and to substantiate his contentions. Therefore, the appeal is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). 6. The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 03.09.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (A.D.JAIN ) ACCOUNTANTMEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” आदेश क त(ल)प अ*े)षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ/ The Appellant 2. यथ/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआय ु +त/ CIT 4. )वभागीय तन.ध, आयकर अपील"य आ.धकरण, च0डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाडफाईल/ Guard File आदेशान ु सार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar