IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 249/Del/2019 Assessment Year 2013-14 YATENDRA KUMAR, vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), VILLAGE AND POST KAJIPUR HAPUR MEERUT ROAD, MEERUT (UP) (PAN: BBYPK6652E) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh. V.K. Goel, CA Revenue by Ms. Ekta Vishnoi, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal is filed by assessee against Order dated 12.6.2018 passed by Ld. CIT(A), Meerut relating to Assessment Year 2013-14 on following grounds:- 1. That order passed by authorities is arbitrary, unjust, illegal and bad in law because authorities below erred in law as well as in facts in passing in order. 2. That order passed by ITO is illegal, contrary to facts and circumstances of case, which has been wrongly confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) without giving proper opportunity. 3. That ITO/CIT(A) was not justified in assessing income of Rs. 20,43,800/- as unexplained deposits in bank. 4. That ld. Authorities below was not justified in assessing deposits as income of appellant. 5. That CIT(A) was also not justified in confirming income, assessed by ITO as unexplained deposit Rs. 20,43,800/-. 2 6. That appellant craves to add, delete or modify any grounds of appeal before / at time of hearing of appeal. 7. That without prejudice to above, order as passed by authorities below and demand so created thereon including interest is highly excessive. 2. Facts narrated by revenue authorities are not disputed by both parties, hence, same are not repeated here for sake of brevity. 3. During hearing, Ld. counsel for assessee has stated that lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in passing orders without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and without observing principle of natural justice. It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in law and on facts in not quashing impugned reassessment exparte order passed by AO u/s 144/147 of Act. However, he confirmed said exparte order of AO. Therefore, he requested that issues in dispute may be remitted back to Ld. CIT(A) to decide same afresh, as per law after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee and consider all documents/evidences of assessee. 4. On other hand, Ld. DR relied upon order of Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has given various opportunities to assessee, but assessee remained non-cooperative. 5. I have heard both parties and perused records, especially orders of revenue authorities. I am of view that there is no doubt that assessee remained non-cooperative before Ld. CIT(A) as well as before AO. I further find that AO has passed exparte order dated 09.10.2017 u/s. 147/144 of Act, which in my opinion, is not in accordance with principles of natural justice and it is erroneous approach. However, Ld. Counsel for assessee undertakes to appear before Ld. CIT(A) and will cooperate in speedy disposal of 3 appeal as well as not seek any unnecessary adjournment before Ld. CIT(A), if this Bench set aside issues to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Keeping in view of facts and circumstances as explained above and in interest of justice, I set aside issues in dispute to file of Ld. CIT(A) for hearing on 13.01.2020 at 10.00 AM with directions to decide same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. It is made clear that no notice for hearing will be issued by Ld. CIT(A) to assessee. Assessee is also directed through his Counsel to appear before Ld. CIT(A) on 13.01.2020 at 10.00 AM for hearing to substantiate his case and did not take any unnecessary adjournment in case. 6. In result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 01/10/2019. Sd/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER Date 01/10/2019 SRBHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches Yatendra Kumar v. ITO, Ward-2(4), Meerut