MOHAMMED SANAULLA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(6), BENGALURU

Assessee has raised several legal grounds as well as the grounds relating to the merits. However, during the course of hearing, assessee did not press any of the legal grounds and pressed only for hearing of the grounds on merits viz., addition of Rs.12,79,451/- under section 69 of the Act.

The learned AR submitted that assessee had given relevant papers to the ITP. However, ITP had failed to appear before the CIT(A). Further it was submitted that assessee had met with an accident and was hospitalized during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore could not follow up the ITP. The assessee placed on record copy of FIR, discharge summary, etc. The assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act. Further, it was submitted that hearing notices before CIT(A) were not complied since assessee had failed to take notice of the same as assessee was a computer illiterate and did not open his email ID.

The learned Standing Counsel supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A).

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(A) had issued six notices from 28.01.2021 to 26.07.2023. Since there was no compliance to the notices, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

I strongly deprecate the assessee in not responding to the notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee. Accordingly, the issue on merits is restored to the files of the AO. Assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. It is ordered accordingly.

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