2021 (9) TMI 1470 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal sets aside CIT(A) order for 2011-12, emphasizes natural justice principles violated. (A)

Sukhvinder Pal Singh, Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-44 (I), New Delhi

Sukhvinder Pal Singh, Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-44 (I), New Delhi - TMI Issues:- Correctness of the order dated 24.06.2019 of CIT(A)-15 pertaining to 2011-12 assessment year.- Assessee's claim of lack of reasonable opportunity to furnish documentary evidence and details.- Ex-parte proceedings due to absence of the assessee during the hearing.- Consideration of written submissions without supporting documentary evidence.- Violation of principles of natural justice regarding the right to be heard.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged the correctness of the CIT(A)-15's order related to the 2011-12 assessment year. One ground of challenge was the alleged lack of a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to provide necessary documentary evidence and details. The absence of the assessee during the hearing led to ex-parte proceedings. The Senior DR argued for dismissal due to the absence of documentary evidence supporting the assessee's claim.2. The impugned order confirmed an addition to the assessee's income based on cash deposits in the bank account. The AO's decision was upheld due to the lack of documentary evidence supporting the assessee's business activities. The AO applied a profit rate in the absence of explanations from the assessee. The CIT(A) did not find a reason to interfere with the AO's findings, confirming the addition to the income.3. The Tribunal noted that the written submissions made by the assessee were not substantiated with supporting documentary evidence. It emphasized the importance of providing an effective opportunity to be heard, as per principles of natural justice. The order highlighted the necessity of ensuring the conscious waiver of the right to be heard by the assessee.4. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that the waiver of the right to be heard must be made knowingly and consciously by the assessee. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest that the assessee consciously waived the right to be heard. The order was set aside, directing the assessee to present full facts and evidence before the First Appellate Authority for a fresh decision.5. The Tribunal concluded that, in the absence of evidence showing a conscious waiver of the right to be heard, a fair opportunity for an effective hearing was not provided. The order was set aside, allowing the assessee to present full facts and evidence for a fresh decision by the CIT(A). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, focusing on the grounds of appeal, the decision-making process, the importance of providing a fair opportunity to be heard, and the ultimate outcome of the appeal.