2022 (5) TMI 1061

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... required to be quashed as same was passed without observing principle of natural justice. 2. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the facts and circumstances that appellant was not in receipt of any notice of hearing before him and due to non-receipt could not attend the hearing. Hence, appeal may be set aside. 3. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits and not merely dismissed the same ex parte. 4. Ld. CIT(A) erred inlaw and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 4,17,95,918/- by invoking provision of Section 50C of Act solely on relying valuation by stamp duty authority without bringing evidences on record. Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the addition merely on conjectures and surmises. It be so held now. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eeding ex parte by passing a non-speaking order. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) and has not received notice during the assessment. Notice of ld. CIT(A) was also not communicated to him as the assessee was out of India and the person appointed by the assessee to pursue his appeal has not taken proper step to enquire about the status of appeal. The ld. AR of the assessee invited our attention on para 6 of the impugned order and would submit that the ld. CIT(A) issues notice for hearing fixing the date of hearing on three occasions. The ld. CIT(A) himself recorded that the notices were returned back. The ld. AR for assessee submits that the assessee has a very good case on merit and is like....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Officer passed the assessment order under Section 144 and made addition of Rs. 4.17 crores. The assessing officer recorded that no documents were furnished by the assessee, thus, in absence of information the cost of acquisition and improvement was not possible and treated the same are zero. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine without discussing the merit of the case. Before dismissing the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) recorded that the notice of hearing of appeal was sent on three occasions. However, the notices were received back with the remark of postal authorities "not served". Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee is an NRI and the notice was not served him. We find that the ld. CIT(A) instead ....