M/S ANAGI TRADING PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6(1)(2), MUMBAI

Shri Dharmesh Shah appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) in ex-parte proceedings has dismissed the appeal of assessee. He submitted that a perusal of the impugned order would show that the CIT(A) had issued notice to the assessee. The assessee had changed its address and new address was intimated to the CIT(A) on 23/11/2017 and again on 19/01/2018, but no notice was ever served on the assessee at the new address intimated vide aforesaid letters. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee has good case on merits, if the appeal is restored to the CIT(A), the assessee would make submissions and furnish relevant documents before the First Appellate Authority.

Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer had made G.P addition and had also made addition in respect of Share Application money u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. The assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) to substantiate genuineness of Share Application money. He placed reliance on the decision in the case of Ariel Sarien Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO 46 taxamann.com 417 (Guj) to contend that where the assessee has not brought any evidence on record to substantiate its claim, addition u/s. 68 of the Act is justified.

We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. The CIT(A) in ex-parte proceedings has upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer. A perusal of the impugned order shows that notice of hearing were issued to the assessee on five occasions. The assessee failed to respond to the notices. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee has placed on record the letters vide which the assessee had informed the CIT(A) about its new address. It has been contended on behalf of the assessee that no notice from the CIT(A) was ever served on the assessee at new address provided to the CIT(A). Without commenting on merit of the grounds raised in appeal, we deem it appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing/making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law. The CIT(A) shall issue notice to the assessee on the latest address/E-mail ID provided by the assessee.

The assessee is directed to furnish current address and operational/valid E-mail ID to the CIT(A) for service of notice. In case the assessee fails to furnish current address and valid e-mail ID for service of notice, the CIT(A) may send the notice of hearing on the address/e.mail ID already available in the record. The assessee on service of notice shall respond to the same and appear before the CIT(A) or make submissions, as the case may be, without fail. If the assessee fails to respond to the notice, the CIT(A) is at liberty to take adverse view of the same.

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.