2021 (9) TMI 1470
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther details as desired necessary by him." 2. At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. Noticing that apart from the above ground, various other grounds have also been raised by the assessee, it was deemed appropriate to pass over the appeal . However, even in the second round, the position remained the same. Accordingly, after hearing the Ld. Sr. DR it was deemed appropriate to proceed with the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee appellant on merits. 3. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed in view of the fact that no documentary evidences were filed by the assessee in support of his claim. However, the said request of the Ld. SR. DR cannot be accepted in view of the fact that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aim made in the written submissions was not substantiated by the assessee. A perusal of the record shows that there is nothing on record to show that any such opportunity was granted by the CIT(A) . It is well settled that in case an adjudicating authority finds the written submissions are not sufficient and complete then necessarily the First Appellate Authority should put this deficiency to the notice of the appellant. Without any specific communication to this effect, it cannot be said in all fairness that an effective opportunity of being heard has been granted to the assessee. Once it is seen that the submissions were without supporting documentary evidences then in an effective representation such an opportunity necessarily needs to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to waive the right to be heard and instead choose to rely on written submissions only. However, it is the duty of the adjudicating authority to ensure that the waiver so made is consciously made and with full knowledge and understanding that the right to be heard exists. The record is silent on this aspect. In the facts of the present case there is nothing on record to show that the right to be heard was consciously and knowingly waived. Support is drawn from Amrik Singh Bhullar Vs. ITO [2021] 128 taxmann.com 245 (Chandigarh - Trib.) wherein a detailed examination of the specific issue namely whether making available of written submissions can be said to tantamount to a conscious waiver of right to be heard by an assessee was specifically ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n provided. The arbitrary presumption that the assessee shall have nothing to state cannot be upheld. 13.4 Accordingly, in view thereof, the order cannot be upheld and deserves to be set aside. 5. Similarly in Harbans Lal V ITO [2018] 97 taxmann.com 622 (Chandigarh - Trib.) it is seen that waiver of right to be heard has clearly been held to necessitate that the waiver so made is knowingly and consciously made i.e. intelligently made and with full knowledge and understanding i.e. with the foreknowledge that the right to be heard exists. The onus to ensure that the waiver was made with full and conscious knowledge of the existence of this sacrosanct right rests on the shoulders of the adjudicating authority who is to ensure that the ass....