SALIM KHUDBUDDIN PATEL,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee relating to various additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s.69A of the Act, however, these all relate to the exparte order of the ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC in dismissing the appeal on account of non-prosecution and thereby sustaining the various additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and for the year under consideration the assessee has not filed the return of income. Based on the information available on insight portal of the Department with the Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT, it came to notice that the assessee has entered into huge financial transactions as cash deposits of Rs.82,83,600/- was made in his bank account and salary to employees at Rs.2,05,860/-. Case of the assessee was reopened for carrying out the proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. In response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee furnished the return of income declaring income of Rs.6,52,530/-. Thereafter, statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee to which the assessee submitted certain details before the Assessing Officer. In absence of furnishing of certain more details as called by the Assessing Officer, ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment making various additions and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,58,05,592/-.

Aggrieved by the various additions, assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) but the assessee remained non-compliant resulting into dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution.

Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that assessee’s case was looked after by Mr. Mundra, Chartered Accountant who failed to appear

The ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand heavily relied on the order of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and submitted that as many as four opportunities were granted by ld.CIT(A)/NFAC to the assessee to substantiate his case. However, the assessee failed to submit any details, therefore, the order of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC should be upheld.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. We find before the Assessing Officer the assessee has furnished partial details and could not submit further details as called for by the Assessing Officer. We further find that in the First Appellate Proceedings there was non compliance from the side of asesssee. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution by holding as under :

From the above finding, it is an admitted fact that despite four opportunities granted by ld.CIT(A)/NFAC but there was no compliance from the side of the assessee for which he merely confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. It is the submission of ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Chatered Accountant who was handling the case of the assessee has not made any appearance which resulting into dismissal of the assessee’s appeal. It is also his submission that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to submit the details before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

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