IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4065/DEL/2018 A.Y.: 2013-14 PRAMOD PANDAY B-67, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 19, NEW DELHI-55 [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. SURENDRA MEENA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 04 10 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09 10 2018 O R D E R N.K. SAINI, A.M: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 21.03.2018 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-27, NEW DELHI. DURING THE COU RSE OF HEARING, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. NEITHER ANY ADJO URNMENT WAS SOUGHT, I, THEREFORE, PROCEEDED EX PARTE AND THE APPEAL IS DECIDED AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED SR. DR. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L:- 1. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE NOT PASSED THE ORDER EX PARTE. 2. THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/- U/S 2(22)(E) OF T HE ACT IS WRONG AND IS OPPOSED TO EVIDENCES ON RECORD. 3. THE TRANSACTIONS OF RS. 5,00,000/- ALLEGED TO BE DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) OF ITA NO. 4065/DEL/2018 2 THE ACT, BEING TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO IN THE COU RSE OF BUSINESS AND FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(2 2)(E) OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE AT ALL. 2. VIDE GROUND NO. 1, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). FACTS OF THE C ASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.7.2013 DECLAR ING AN INCOME OF RS. 30,82,910/-. LATER ON THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCR UTINY. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/- BY MAKING THE DISALLOWAN CE U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ). BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) W HO DISMISSED THE APPEAL EX PARTE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 5. THE LEARNED SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LEARNED CI T(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX PARTE FOR NON PROSECUTION WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE CASE ON MERIT. HE SIMPLY STATED THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED FOR FIXING THE DATES OF HEARING WERE EITHER NOT COMPLIED WITH OR ADJOURNMENTS WERE SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE BY MAKING EXCUSES. HOWEVER, NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON R ECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE WHILE SEEKING THE ADJ OURNMENT. IT IS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICES ISSUED WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD AS PER THE MAXIM AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM. I, THEREFORE, BY K EEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE REMIT THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER P ROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 4065/DEL/2018 3 (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.10.2018. ) SD/ - [ N.K. SAINI ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 09.10.2018 SH COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT AS SISTANT REGISTRAR DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 4.10.2018 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 5.10.2018 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 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