AMRATBHAI D. RAYKA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NAVSARI

Assessee by Shri Pragnesh Jagasheth – CA Revenue by Ms. Anupma Singla – Sr. DR Date of hearing 18.05.2021 Date of pronouncement 18.05.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the orders of ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), Valsad, dated 22.11.2017, for assessment year (AY) 2013-14. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs.26,12,077/- on account of estimation of trading income of the assessee (50% of Rs.52,24,154/-) and restricting agriculture income at Rs.10,42,207/-.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs.59,60,000/- on account of cash deposited in bank accounts treated as alleged unexplained cash deposited.

3. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper.

4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.”

Amratbhai D. Rayka (AY 2013-14) 2. On hearing, the Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance. The ld.CIT(A) adjudicated the grounds of appeal on merit. The AR submits that the date of hearing was fixed by ld.CIT(A) vide notice dated 11.04.2017, 28.04.2017, 09.05.2017 and 22.08.2017. The assessee received all notices and attended to proceeding. The AR of the assessee requested for adjournment for valid reason. The ld.CIT(a) though granted adjournment, but date of hearing was not fixed and passed the order ex- parte in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance. The AR of the assessee submits that he may be given one more opportunity to represent the case before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and appeal may be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merit.

3. On the other hand, the ld.Senior Departmental Representative (Sr.DR) for the Revenue submits that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity, though assessee has appeared through representative no compliance was made. On confronting the fact that the ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merit. The ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue submit that appeal may be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for adjudication on merit with the direction to assessee to not to make further default in appearance and to provide all necessary information and evidence to the ld.CIT(A).

4. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the orders of before us. We have seen that AR of the assessee fairly conceded that notice for various dates were received and they appeared as and when notice of hearing was received, however, they sought