TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 1961 [for short 'the Act']. 2. Brief facts of the case emanating from the record and pleadings of the parties are that the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act to the appellant/assessee for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act against him on the ground that during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration he being an employee of a Bank received salary amounting to Rs. 8,66,126/-, however, did not file return of his income. No return was filed by the assessee in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Thereafter the AO issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 05.05.2017 and 15.11.2017. Since no response was received from the assessee, AO issued show cause notice along with notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst the Principals of Natural Justice and as such the assessment framed is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the reopening the assessment by issuance of notice u/s. 148 in as much as there has been no escapement of income and as such the assessment framed is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 8,66,126/- for salary received from out of alleged undisclosed sources only for the reason that the assessee did not file an application for additional evidence which is arbitrary and unjustified. 4. That the salary has been received from M/s. Sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings. The Ld. counsel further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has only endorse the ex-parte assessment order passed by the AO without pointing out any cogent reason for not considering the documents placed on record during the appellate proceedings. The Ld. counsel further submitted that as per Form 16, during the previous year the assessee received gross salary of Rs. 7,84,650/- and after taking benefit u/s. 10 of the Act and deduction u/s. 80C of the Act, taxable income remained Rs. 6,41,700/- on which the M/s. Standard Chartered Bank deducted tax at source amounting to Rs. 82,951/-. Since, the assessee has already paid the tax the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly affirmed the action of the AO. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Represen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d against without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. 9. In the present case, since the assessment order had been passed u/s. 144 of the Act, the assessee had no occasion to place on the record the relevant evidence essential for the just decision of the case. Further, it is not apparent from the assessment order that the notices issued/sent to the assessee were served upon him and the despite the service of notices, the assessee failed to appear before the AO. Under these circumstances, the assessee had no option but to adduce additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, in our considered view, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the additional evidence which the asses....