YASHWANT H. MORE,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT

Brief facts of the case are that the assessment for the year under consideration was completed on 31.03.2015 under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessing officer (A.Y. 12-13) Yashant H More while passing the assessment made addition of Rs.2,05,94,742/-, which consist of addition of Rs. 2,01,59,680/- on account of disallowance of 10% of sundry creditors and disallowance of expenses of Rs. 4,35,062/-. The assessing office initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c). The A.O. after serving the notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) levied penalty of Rs.1,86,24,117/ being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. On appeal before ld.CIT(A)the action of the assessing officer in levying penalty was upheld. The ld CIT(A) confirmed the order of assessing officer in ex- party order by taking view that despite granting a number of opportunity the assessee failed to comply the notices. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was taken up for hearing. On further perusal of record shows that the A.O. passed ex-party assessment order. Further penalty was also levied in ex-party proceedings. The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A), but not compliance was made therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the order of penalty in ex-party order. 4. The ld. Senior Departmental representative (DR) for the revenue submits that the assessee was given three opportunity as recorded in page-2 of the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee failed to comply with the ITA No.685/SRT/2018 (A.Y. 12-13) Yashant H More notice issued by the ld.CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) left with no option, except to proceed to decide the issue and in absence of any evidence or explanation affirm the action of AO.

In alternative submission, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that in case the Hon’ble Tribunal is deem appropriate, the assessee be directed to be vigilant and not to default in attending the proceedings before ld.CIT(A).

We have considered the submission of ld. DR for the revenue and have gone through the orders of Lower Authorities. We find that the ld. CIT(A) fixed the hearing on three occasions as mentioned in para-3 of the impugned order. It is recorded by ld. CIT(A) that no compliance was made by the assessee. we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not recorded his satisfaction whether the notice issued by him is served or not. There is no satisfaction of Ld. CIT(A) about the proper service of the notices of hearing fixed before him. Further, we find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with mandate of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Section 250(6) of the Act mandates that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal is required to pass order on points of determination (grounds of appeal