MR HARIRAM PAHLUMAL BHAMBHANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

O R D E R PER : MS PADMAVATHY S. (AM)

This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short, ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 24/03/2023 for A.Y. 2012- 13. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“The following grounds of appeal are taken independently and without prejudice to one another.

2 ITA 1338/Mum/2023 Shri Hariram P Bhambhani 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte, without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 1.1 The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte for non - compliance of the notices of hearing. The last notice in this case was issued for 15-02-2023. The assessee has applied for extension of time for making the written submissions vide acknowledgement, dated 15-02-2023. Subsequently, the assessee had tried to upload the written submissions many times on 24-03-2023, but the e-portal has not allowed the uploading of the written submissions. The assessee has thus been denied the proper opportunity of being heard. As such the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not as per law and is invalid. The same may be cancelled/quashed.

2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on merits, in a single sentence, without discussing at all the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

3 ITA 1338/Mum/2023 Shri Hariram P Bhambhani Shipping Ltd, which are suspicious in nature. The Assessing Officer subsequently issued notice under section 142(1) calling for various details. Subsequently, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 where the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.2,50,00,000/- as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act towards transfer of money from the account of M/s Bhambhani Shipping Ltd to the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs.11,583/- towards mismatch between the income declared by the assessee and the income as per form 26AS. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal exparte since there was no representation by the assessee before the CIT(A).

3. During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) due to which the issue could not be contended on merits before the CIT(A). The ld AR further submitted that the assessee had applied for extension of time for filing the details in response to last of the notices of the CIT(A) on 15.02.2023. The ld AR also submitted that the e-portal did not allow uploading of the written submissions though the assessee made several attempts on 24.03.2023. Accordingly, the Ld.AR prayed for one more opportunity to represent the case on merits before the CIT(A). The Ld.DR did not raise any objections to the said prayer.

4. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the CIT(A) in his order (page 72, para 4) had listed the number of notices (totaling to 10) issued to the assessee to which there was no response from the assessee. Therefore, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on the grounds of appeal and available materials on record. Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) to present the case on merits, in the interest of substantial justice, we are inclined to provide one more

4 ITA 1338/Mum/2023 Shri Hariram P Bhambhani opportunity to the assessee. We, accordingly, restore the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to respond to the hearing notices to be issued by the CIT(A) and cooperate with the appellate proceedings by submitting all the relevant details.

Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 10/07/2023.