ASHOK GUPTA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-25(2)(1), MUMBAI

At the time of hearing, an adjournment petition was moved by the assessee requesting the Bench to adjourn the case for fifteen days. However, learned DR pointed that the learned CIT(A) was constrained to pass the order ex-parte since the assessee did not appear before him. The Learned DR also submitted that the assessee has also not appeared before the Assessing Officer also and hence the Assessing Officer was constrained to pass the order to the best of his Judgment under section 144 of the Act.

We heard learned DR and perused the record. We noticed that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating the grounds on merit. We also noticed that the assessee has not cooperated with the tax authorities during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to present its case properly before the learned CIT(A). However the same will be at a cost, since the assessee was not co-operating with the tax authorities. Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) upon the assessee, which shall be paid to the credit of income tax department as ‘other fees’ within the two months from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of above said cost, which shall be verified by the learned CIT(A), all the issues urged before us are restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudicating them on merits. We also direct the assessee to fully cooperate with the learned CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal. Needless to mention that the assessee should be provided with adequate opportunity of being heard.

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