Sh. Mahendra Mehra Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
ITAT Jaipur held that there was short gap between three notices issued as say the opportunities granted hence it a fit case were one more opportunity should be granted in the proceedings before CIT(A), to enable the assessee to represent his appeals.
Facts- Vide assessment order dated 12.2019, total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 99,00,000/- u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, relating to assessment year 2012-13, while making addition as regards unexplained investment , as provided u/s 69 of the Act. At the same time, the Assessing Officer ordered for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) & (c) of the Act. As regards, assessment year 2013-14, the Assessing Officer assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,64,00,000/- u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and Section 144B of the Act, by making addition in view of unexplained investment, as provided u/s 69 of the Act.
CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that it is true that the assessee-appellant should have been duly represented before Learned CIT(A), particularly, when the last opportunity was granted, two notices having been issued prior thereto, but, taking into consideration that there was short gap between three notices issued as say the opportunities granted, we deem it a fit case were one more opportunity should be granted in the proceedings before Ld. CIT(A), to enable the assessee-appellant to represent his appeals before Learned CIT(A) so as to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard.
