RAMESHKUMAR VYAS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-26(2)(1), DIVA

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 512 days. We also noticed that the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer as well as before the learned CIT(A) and hence they were constrained to pass the orders ex-parte. The assessee has filed an affidavit stating that he has shifted his residence to Thane while notices were sent by the tax authorities to his old address located at Kanjurmarg, Mumbai. Accordingly, it is submitted that the assessee did not receive notices and could not appear before the tax authorities. The very same reason has been given for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Considering the explanation given by the assessee, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause for the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.

Since the orders passed by the tax authorities are ex-parte, we are of the view that the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly before the learned CIT(A), but the same will be at a cost. Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee, which shall be paid to the credit of income tax department as “other fees” within sixty days from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of the above said cost, which shall be verified by the learned CIT(A), we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to this file for adjudicating them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to intimate the tax authorities new address and also fully cooperate with the learned CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.