PRADIP DAYANAND KOTHARI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two separate orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai dated 18.08.2017 relevant to the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and confirmation of quantum addition for the assessment year 2012-13.

When these appeals were taken up for hearing, by referring to the 2 written submissions, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that all the three appeals were dismissed ex-parte on the ground that the assessee has not contested the appeals. It was further submission that the assessee engaged a Chartered Accountant firm to represent its appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and was under bonafide belief that the AR will take care of the appeal proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). However, the AR had not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) despite receipt of 11 hearing notices to the CA and on receipt of the appellate order, the assessee understood that the matter was not represented by its AR. It was further submission that the assessee may be afforded an opportunity of being heard to represent its case before the ld. CIT(A).

On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the assessee was afforded as much as 11 opportunities to represent its case during the course of appellate proceedings and strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A).

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that during the course of appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) has fixed the hearing and several notices posting the case for hearing on 11.08.2016, 19.09.2016, 19.10.2016, 07.11.2016, 22.11.2016, 04.01.2017, 23.01.2017, 14.02.2017, 28.02.2017, 10.03.2017 and 16.08.2017 were sent to the assessee. A letter dated 22.11.2016 signed by the AR has been received by the ld. CIT(A) seeking adjournment without power of attorney. Since there was no representation from assessee’s side, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order. Considering the prayer of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and to meet the ends of natural justice, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee shall be given an opportunity to substantiate its case before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the exparte appellate order and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeals afresh in accordance with law after considering the details as may be furnished by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish proper explanation before the ld. CIT(A) for consideration for all the assessment years under appeal.