SAMATA SACHIN GAWAS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(5), MUMBAI

Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the appeal is filed with a delay of 43 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal along with an affidavit.

Considering the rival submissions and perusing the reasons adduced by the assessee for the delay, we are of the view that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the delay of 43 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

Coming to the merits of the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment as well as the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) were ex parte as the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by both the authorities. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings were completed solely due to non- response arising from inadvertent non-monitoring of notices on the Income-tax portal and the registered email ID by the assessee. The additions were made merely due to the non-response of the assessee resulting in a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that the assessee is now in a position to furnish all the required details and documents in respect of the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of the difference in the valuation of the property sold and, therefore, in the interest of justice, 2 the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

Ld. DR has no serious objection in restoring the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer.

Considering the submissions and perusing the material available on record, we observe that both the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings were ex parte proceedings and the assessee now intends to file the documents in the form of the purchase agreement, schedule of capital gains and computation of income, sale agreement, etc. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the assessment and restore the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to reframe the assessment afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

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