TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat Ld. AO issued notices on wrong address of Old DLF Gurgaon. Thus, there appears to be an error in conduct of proceedings by both Ld. AO and Ld. FAA in not giving adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee after serving the assessee on correct postal address. Even otherwise the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority has an inherent vice as can observed from discussion in para 4.1 to 5 of Ld. CIT(A) orders, reproduced above, that at one end the appeal is being dismissed for non prosecution on the other hand a discussion on merits has also been made to dismiss the appeal on merits. Appeal deserves to be allowed on ground no. 1 alone requiring restoration of the appeal to the files of Ld. First Appellate Authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k Kumar after payment of full consideration and stamp duties. The said property was declared in the return of income filed for the AY 2010-11.That, Ld AO of Gurgaon re-opened the case u/s 148/ 147 and passed orders u/s 144 of the Act. 3. The First Appellate Authority had passed the impugned order dated 13.11.2018 which has been challenged before this Tribunal on following grounds of appeal :- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, both the learned CIT-A and Ld AO has erred in passing ex-parte order against the assessee, without giving any opportunity of been heard. 2. That the order passed by the Ld AO u/s 148 suffered from jurisdictional issues and as such could not be passed. The CIT A appeal erred in pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Property Development Pvt. Ltd. but as no one attended on behalf of the assessee, assessment u/s 144 was conducted and the income was assessed at ₹ 1,27,50,000/-, on the basis of investment in purchase of immovable property. The order of ld. AO mentions that notices were sent at all the addresses which were available with the department, though in body of the order the addresses were not mentioned. The title of assessment order shows the address of the assessee as M/s. Dr. Fresh Property Dev Pvt. Ltd., 11A, 1B- 43C, Old DLF, Gurugram- 122001. 7. It can be further appreciated from the matter on record that in Form No. 35 before the Ld. FAA it was contended as one of the grounds of appeal that the notices were sent on wrong add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. As reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) when faced with a similar situation of nonprosecution of appeal, dismissed the appeal of revenue. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in the AO s order and therefore, the grounds of appeal are dismissed and the addition made by the AO is confirmed. Even on merits, it is observed from the assessment order that the AO had reopened the case u/s .147 of the Act based on the information received by him that the appellant has made an investment of ₹ 1,27,50,000/- in purchase of immovable property during the year under consideration. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO repeatedly issued notices 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 ..... ress of Old DLF Gurgaon. 11. Thus, there appears to be an error in conduct of proceedings by both Ld. AO and Ld. FAA in not giving adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee after serving the assessee on correct postal address. 12. Even otherwise the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority has an inherent vice as can observed from discussion in para 4.1 to 5 of Ld. CIT(A) orders, reproduced above, that at one end the appeal is being dismissed for non prosecution on the other hand a discussion on merits has also been made to dismiss the appeal on merits. 13. In the light of aforesaid, the appeal deserves to be allowed on ground no. 1 alone requiring restoration of the appeal to the files of Ld. First Appellate Aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
