RAVIKUMAR KAMLESHBHAI SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD :5(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (‘hereinafter called CIT(A)’) order no. CIT(A)-5/ITO. Ward- 2 . A.Y. 2014-15 5(2)(1)/450/2016-17 order dated 20/10/2017 arising out of assessment order dated 31/08/2016. Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:

At the outset, Ld. Counsel argued that Ld. A.O. passed order u/s. 144 as because of some reason, assesse could not appear before the Ld. A.O. and before Ld. CIT(A) also. He could not appear due to mistake of his Accountant and assesse was under the impression that his Accountant will handle the matter but same could not be done. So Ld. CIT(A) in mechanical manner confirmed order of the Ld. A.O.

We have heard both the parties and gone through the impugned order. Undoubtedly, assesee could not appear before the lower authorities and he was dependent upon his Accountant who did not perform his duty assigned by the assesse.

Thus, in the interest of justice and since matter has not been decided on merit, we impose cost of Rs. 20,000/- for which Ld. A.R. has agreed and cost of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited with the Department as assesse has wasted precious time of the lower authorities. The assesse is directed to deposit Rs. 20,000/- cost within 60 days from receipt of this order and on production of cost of receipt ld. CIT(A) will proceed with the appeal and giving an opportunity being heard to the assesse and thereafter will decide the matter as per law.

In the result, appeal field by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. .