2018 (7) TMI 2217 - AT - Income Tax

CIT-A decided the appeal of the assessee ex-parte - Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) making the additions u/s 68 - HELD THAT - In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal of the assessee exparte even when an application for adjournment was furnished by the assessee. CIT(A) although rejected the application for adjournment but he had not given any cogent reason for the same. On the contrary, assessee submitted that the then Counsel for the assessee was suffering from health problems, therefore, could not appear on the date of hearing and that the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issues on merit. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim audi alteram partem . We, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues:
1. Ex-parte order passed by ld. CIT(A) without providing opportunity.
2. Addition of ?82,38,000 and ?6,44,816 confirmed by ld. CIT(A).
3. Failure to provide opportunity for cross-examination by Ld. AO.
4. Appeal against the order dated 23.03.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-8, New Delhi.

Issue 1: Ex-parte order passed by ld. CIT(A) without providing opportunity:
The appellant raised concerns regarding the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) without providing an opportunity for a hearing. The appellant argued that the order was passed without considering the reasons and facts presented during the proceedings. The appellant also highlighted the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination by the Ld. AO. The Tribunal acknowledged the principles of natural justice, emphasizing the importance of being heard before a decision is made. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the issue to be adjudicated afresh by the ld. CIT(A) while ensuring due and reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

Issue 2: Addition of ?82,38,000 and ?6,44,816 confirmed by ld. CIT(A):
The appellant contested the additions of ?82,38,000 and ?6,44,816 confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), arguing that all relevant documents and details had been provided to the Ld. AO and ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions without considering the appellant's submissions. The Tribunal noted the appellant's contention and directed the issue to be reconsidered by the ld. CIT(A) on merit, ensuring a fair hearing and examination of all relevant documents and details provided by the appellant.

Issue 3: Failure to provide opportunity for cross-examination by Ld. AO:
The appellant raised a specific grievance regarding the Ld. AO's failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of the complainant, which led to certain additions in the assessment. The Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue in the judgment but considered it in the broader context of the overall lack of opportunity provided to the assessee during the proceedings.

Issue 4: Appeal against the order dated 23.03.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-8, New Delhi:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order dated 23.03.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-8, New Delhi. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented by both parties, allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adherence to principles of natural justice and providing a fair opportunity for the assessee to present their case before making any decisions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised by the appellant, the Tribunal's considerations, and the ultimate decision regarding each issue involved in the appeal.