JELLY SAMKIT DOSHI,SABARKANTHA vs. ACIT (OSD), SK WARD-3,, SABARKANTHA

At the outset, the ld. counsel has brought to our notice that ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal of the assessee ex-parte as the assessee could not make compliance during the course of appellate proceedings. It is further submitted that ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the appeal by issuing only two notices and when the notices were served, the assessee was residing outside Ahmedabad and was out of the station, therefore, the assessee could not apprise the Authorized Representative to seek adjournment during the course of appellate proceedings before ld. CIT(A). Under these circumstances, the ld. counsel has sought one more opportunity for hearing of this appeal on merit. On the other hand, ld. departmental representative has supported the order of lower authorities.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act in the case of the assessee was finalized on 30th Nov, 2017 and total addition of Rs. 11,97,725/- was made u/s. 68 of the act on the basis of detailed investigation carried out by the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkata wherein it was found that M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. used to launder money by providing accommodation entry and assessee has obtained accommodation entry by purchasing and selling shares of the said company. During the course of appellate proceedings before ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not make compliance for the reasons as cited above this order. Section 250(6) of the Act contemplates that ld. CIT(A) would determine point in dispute and therefore record reason on such point in support of his conclusion. In the light of the above facts and circumstances as per our considered view it would serve the end of justice if one more opportunity of personal hearing is granted to the assessee while disposing of the appeal at the level of ld. CIT(A) u/s. 250 of the Act. However, we observe that assessee has wasted precious time of the revenue authority for not making compliance before the ld. CIT(A) as the reason for non-compliance is not fully established, therefore, as per our considered view it would be appropriate to direct the assessee to pay a cost totaling of Rs. 20,000/- for all these four cases within a period of 15 days of receipt of this order and furnish the receipt/challan before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we restore all these four cases before the ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after hearing the assessee as directed above.

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18-03-2020 Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 18/03/2020 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,