TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd therefore, the assessee deserves one more opportunity of hearing to present his case. When the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without even considering the fate of substantive addition and the assessee has already explained the sufficient reason for not attending the proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and matter is remanded to the record of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say that the protective addition is dependent on the outcome of the case where the substantive addition was made by the Assessing Officer. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 105/ALLD/2020 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be held as null and void. 3. BECAUSE even in the ex-parte order, Ld. CIT(A) should have decided various grounds of appeal on merits on the basis of material and information available on assessment record as well in the Statement of Facts instead of dismissing the appeal in limini. 4. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the authorities below were not correct either in law or on facts in making/upholding the additions aggregating ₹ 56,52,415 on protective basis. 5. BECAUSE on a due consideration of the fact that during the assessment proceedings the assessee had furnished/explained to the assessing officer the sources from which the payments had been made for purchase of immovable properties and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not sustainable because valuation of the properties was not referred to the departmental valuation officer even though the assessee had disputed the adoption of stamp value and had made specific request for referring the valuation to the departmental valuation officer. 10. BECAUSE without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) is bad in law as the assessing officer had issued notice u/s 144 dated 13.12.2016 against which the assessment ought to have been made u/s 144 only. 11. BECAUSE without prejudice to the other ground of appeal, the addition of ₹ 15,040249 is not sustainable as the Ld A.O. had failed to mention the relevant section under which the said addition was ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der it is noted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by exparte order when nobody attended the hearing. It is noted that the impugned order has been passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 30.07.2020 in the midst of ongoing COVID-19, Pandemic. Further, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 56,52,415/- on protective basis whereas the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the said addition without even considering the status and outcome of the substantive addition made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, without knowing the status of the substantive addition made by the Assessing Officer the protective addition cannot be decided conclusively. Further, in view of the facts and circumstances that the impugned order has been passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
