SHRI MOHAN KUMAR PANNALAL BAHUNE ,CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHHINDWARA

This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 27.4.2018, dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting the order u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 06.10.2010 for assessment year (AY) 2005-06.

Opening the arguments for and on behalf of the assessee-appellant, it was submitted by Shri Rahul Bardia, the assessee’s counsel, that the notice of hearing by the first appellate authority was issued for the first time only on 08.11.2017 (for 29.11.2017), i.e., seven years after the filing of the appeal 2 Sumit Bahune, L/H of Mohan Kumar Bahune v. ITO before him on 24.11.2010. The assessee had in fact died soon thereafter, and his son, Sumit Bahune, who received the notice, was completely unaware of income-tax matters of his father, and neither did he have the documents in respect thereof for him to proceed in the matter. The next opportunity of hearing (by the ld. CIT(A)) followed for 26.4.2018, which also could not be responded to for the same reason/s. The ld. CIT(A) proceeded ex parte qua the assessee- appellant, and dismissed the appeal in limine. The ld. DR, Shri Khandel, would emphasis on the lackadaisical attitude of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) was under the circumstances, he continued, constrained to dismiss the assessee’s appeal. 3. The parties stand heard. Even granting that the assessee’s son was not aware of the pending proceedings (before the income-tax authorities) of his father, all he needed was to approach the counsel who had prepared the appeal papers, and thus engaged to represent his father before the first appellate authority. Even otherwise, time, to locate or to create the appeal file anew, where not available, could be sought. However, none appeared nor any representation made, despite adequate opportunity allowing sufficient time; the assessee being put to notice on the receipt of the first notice dated 08.11.2017. The assessee’s conduct, which is deliberate, is thus clearly negligent. 4. The impugned order, however, being not on merits, as contemplated by law (s. 250(4) r/w s. 250(6)), is not sustainable in law. The matter is accordingly set aside subject to imposition of a nominal cost of Rs.1,000/- (INR one thousand only) to be deposited with the Prime Ministers’ National Relief Fund by 31.7.2020. The amount has been deliberately kept low in view of the poor financial position of the representative assessee, who has also since sold his parental house, as explained by the ld. counsel during hearing. Further, Shri Bardia assured of a responsible conduct by the assessee in the set aside proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate afresh, on merits, after allowing 3 Sumit Bahune, L/H of Mohan Kumar Bahune v. ITO reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, in a time bound manner. He shall, needless to add, cause to bring all the legal heirs of the deceased assessee on record. I decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on July 15, 2020 Sd/- (Sanjay Arora) Accountant Member Dated: 15/7/2020 Aks(P)