9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also passed the impugned order without bringing any material on record that the notice for hearing was served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. Therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to remand this case back to the file of the AO 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. - ITA No. 2620/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 5-10-2018 - Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Sh. Shyam Sunder, Adv. For the Revenue : Sh. Surendra M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No notice u/s 142(1) or show cause notice was ever served upon the assessee for making assessment ex parte u/s 144 as per statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act. 4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further failed to notice that the only addition made by the AO while passing ex parte order u/s 144 on account of non-explanation on source of investment for purchase of property of ₹ 37,45,000/- which was through account payee cheques/draft and source was not at all doubted. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has grossly erred in deciding the appeal ex parte and failing in his duty to provide sufficient opportunity specifically when AO passed the assessment order u/s 144/147 of the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee at a wrong address and no reason to believe was mentioned in the said notice. It was further submitted that the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 03.08.2017 was also issued at a wrong address. The aforesaid notices were not received by the assessee. Therefore, the AO was not justified in framing the ex-parte order and the ld. CIT(A) also without considering the facts in right perspective was not justified in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution. 7. In his rival submissions, the ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 8. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the AO issued notices u/s 148 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
