PRASHANT KISHOR MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), MUMBAI

O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 22/09/2022 passed by CIT(A)-48, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3)/147 for the A.Y.2017-18. 2. In various grounds of appeal

3. Ld. DR also did not have any objection if the matter is remanded back to the ld. CIT (A) for adjudicating it on merits.

4. After considering the facts and material brought on record, we find that the ld. CIT(A) have noted that certain notices were sent to the assessee, however, no communication was received from the assessee. Accordingly, he has passed an exparte order on merits confirming the addition made by the ld. AO. Before us, the ld. Counsel have explained that firstly, assessee was going Shri Prashant Kishor Mehta through huge medical problems as he suffered Covid infection three times and thereafter, very prolonged illness and was under medical cure for long time, in support of which medical reports and certificates have been filed. Apart from that e-mail ID and mobile number was provided in the portal belonged to the authorised representative / Chartered Accountant who did not attend the proceedings nor informed the assessee about any such communication by the department. So much so, even the appellate order was not communicated to the assessee. Under these circumstances and in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that matter should be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue of cash deposits afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to update his email ID and information in the ITB portal for proper communication of the notices and to comply in the appellate proceedings to substantiate his case. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.