SURESH UJAMSHI TREVADIA,MUMBAI vs. WARD 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in not providing an opportunity to present the case on merit and passing an ex parte order u/s 250 of the Act IT Act 1961 by confirming all the addition made by the Ld AO to the returned income and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax Act 1961 and rules made thereunder.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 70,000/- made by the Ld AO to the returned income on account of deemed rent under the head "Income from House Property" and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act 1961 and rules made there under.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 15,60,000/- made by the Ld AO to the returned income u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by treating the genuine and explained gift received. by the appellant as unexplained cash credit, without appreciating the evidence filed during the appellate proceedings and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act 1961 and rules made there under.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.83,86,248/- made by the Ld AO u/s 14A of the IT Act, 1961 by treating the expenditure allegedly incurred in relation to exempt income as disallowable, without properly appreciating the facts and the submission of the appellant and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act 1961 and rules made there under.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.6,10,563/- made by the Ld AO u/s 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961 by treating the genuine interest expenditure as not allowable without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.1,24,43,145/- made by the Ld AO to the returned income u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by treating the genuine loan creditors as unexplained cash credit, without appreciating the evidence filed during the appellate proceedings and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act 1961 and rules made there under.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld AO in treating STCG of Rs. 95,079/- as Business Income without properly appreciating the facts and the assessee's method of maintaining a distinction between investment and trading in shares without assigning valid reason and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of interest of Rs. 1,50,518/- made by the Ld AO to the returned of income u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by treating the genuine interest expenditure as unexplained expenditure without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act 1961 and rules made there under.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in upholding interest under section 234A/B/C of the of the IT Act and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act 1961 and rules made there under.

Relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is mainly engaged in trading in Shares and Securities and during the year under consideration, the assessee disclosed Income of Rs 4,86,132/-. It appears from the assessment order that various additions and disallowances were made mainly on account of lack of proper compliance by the assessee and in the absence of proper replies before the AO.Subsequently,in the appeal before the ld.CIT(A), as noted by him

Before us, the ld.AR pleaded for restoration of appeal before the appellate authority for framing appellate order de novo. It is assured that necessary compliance will be made before him. The ld.DR did not oppose the request,however,he added that the assessee was habitual non-compliant and suitable cost may be imposed.

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on records. It is observed that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delayed filing of the appeal before him. He failed to adjudicate the issues raised in the grounds of appeal and did not examine the materials available on record. Such dismissal without deciding the appeal on merits is contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is settled law that it is the duty of the appellate authority to dispose of an appeal on merits after considering the material on record, even if the appellant fails to appear. However, it is equally true that it is the fundamental duty of the assessee to diligently pursue the appeal and comply with the notices and proceedings initiated by the Revenue authorities.

1 As the ld. AR has requested before us that the assessee may be accorded one more opportunity and this request which was not objected by the ld.DR, in such a scenario, following the principles of justice and fairplay, we are of the opinion that the scales of justice demand that the matter should be verified and revisited at the level of ld.CIT(A) and accordingly, we are of the considered view that the matter should be remanded back to him for de novo adjudication by him while applying the principles of natural justice after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee who, in turn, is directed to cooperate in the appeal proceedings. Any further non-compliance may lead to adverse order against him. The grounds of appeal are therefore, allowed for statistical purposes.

2 However, in view of non-compliant attitude of the assessee as reflected in appeal proceedings, we are of the opinion that appropriate cost must be imposed for defying statutory notices without adducing any justifiable reasons. Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the assessee which is required to be paid in Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within 15 days from the date of passing of this order and file the relevantreceipt thereof before the appellate authority during the appeal proceedings.

In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.