MOHAMMED KALAM MOHAMMED KHALIL KHAN ,VALSAD vs. ITO, WARD 5, VAPI

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning delay of 137 days in filling appeal before it and thereby summarily rejecting appeal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard.

The Assessee was running business of Trading of All types of Scrap. The assessee business was got stopped in the state of Gujarat due to some reasons and hence asseessee moved to West Bengal to carry out business activity. As assessee was not residing at Gujarat and mainly staying in West Bengal to carry out business activity he was unaware of the fact that Assessment notice has been received by him. As his contact details was not updated and he had changed his Consultant he did not know about the notices he had received. One of the asseessee got income tax raid name Abdul Vahid Mansuri and there department found out assessee’s name written on some paper. From there department send notice to assessee. But as assessee does not have any relation with that client, assessee is not liable to pay any tax on transaction on which grounds demand has been raised. Department made addition on the basis of statement produced by client of assessee and finalized the order after making addition of Rs. 87,50,000/- and Rs. 11,70,000. Assessee had filed return of income after declaring profit of Rs. 31,02,530/.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the basis of delay of 137 days.

The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee was carrying business in West Bengal for some time and was not residing in Gujarat and therefore, the assessee did not receive assessment order within time and once the assessee received the same, the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A) belatedly 137 days. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee be given opportunity as both the assessment order as well as the CIT(A) order is ex-parte.

The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment and the order of the CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Since both the authorities have passed ex-pate order, it will be appropriate to remand this matter to the file of the assessing Officer for proper verification of the details which will be filed by the assessee and adjudicate the same as per Income Tax Act. There is a delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, the same is condoned. Needless to say, the assesseee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. It is pertinent to note that the assessee is directed to fully co-operate with the fresh assessment proceedings and file the details within the time. If assessee did not co-operate, then, the Assessing Officer is at liberty to pass the fresh assessment order as per Income Tax Act.

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