2019 (10) TMI 715 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained Credit u/s 68 - HELD THAT - From the perusal of record it can be seen that the Assessing Officer has not given proper opportunity to the assessee to reply the show cause notice dated 12.03.2012 issued by the AO and passed the Assessment Order on 18.03.2013. Before the CIT(A), the Assessee filed the rejoinder dated 23.02.2016 to the Remand Report dated 09.06.2015, but the CIT(A) has not considered the said rejoinder as well as not given the proper opportunity to the assessee. In fact, the CIT(A) has not considered the additional evidences filed by the assessee before arriving at the findings. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back all the issues to the file of the CIT(A) to be decided on merit. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice and the assessee is also directed to co-operate and attend the appellate proceedings, otherwise the CIT(A) is at liberty to decide the appeal on merit after considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Proper opportunity to reply the show cause notice not given by Assessing Officer
2. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) due to non-appearance of appellant
3. Consideration of additional evidences by CIT(A) before arriving at findings

Analysis:
1. The appellant raised concerns regarding the lack of proper opportunity to reply to the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The Assessment Order was passed without giving the appellant a fair chance to respond adequately. The appellant highlighted this issue before the CIT(A), emphasizing the importance of natural justice principles being upheld during the assessment process. The Tribunal acknowledged this lapse and directed that all issues be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merit. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the appellant to be given a proper opportunity of hearing in line with principles of natural justice.

2. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to the non-appearance of the appellant despite notice. The Tribunal noted this and considered the submissions made by the appellant before the CIT(A) as submissions before them. The lack of representation by the appellant was a significant factor in the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal decided to take into account the appellant's submissions and granted a partial allowance of the appeal for statistical purposes, highlighting the importance of proper representation during legal proceedings.

3. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not consider the additional evidences filed by the appellant before arriving at the findings. The failure to consider these evidences raised concerns about the completeness of the decision-making process. As a result, the Tribunal decided to remand all the issues back to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merit. The appellant was directed to cooperate and attend the appellate proceedings to ensure a fair consideration of the additional evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering all relevant evidences before making a final decision on the appeal.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised by the appellant and the Tribunal's decision to address these issues by remanding the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit while ensuring the principles of natural justice are upheld.