PURNIMA NARENDRA MADHANI ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

Admittedly, the assessment proceedings were carried out during COVID-19, when the entire nation was on hold, which resulted into making the addition of Rs.33,45,000/- without mentioning any provision of the Act.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner, however in spite of giving six opportunities made no compliance as recorded by Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order and therefore Ld. Commissioner was constrained to decide the appeal filed by the Assessee on the basis of the material available on record, as ex-parte.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before this Court. The Assessee has filed duly sworn affidavit of Mr. Pravin Vasant Arundekar, Sr. accountant of M/s. Gyan Construction Company who was also dealing with the tax matter of the Assessee herein, somehow due to health issues he failed to comply with the notices, which resulted into passing the impugned order by the Ld. Commissioner as ex-parte. The Assessee submits that non appearance before the Ld. Commissioner was neither intentional nor malafide but owing to the unavoidable and justifiable circumstances, hence one opportunity may be given to the assesses to substantiate her case. The Assessee has also filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rules 1963, containing confirmation of accounts in the books of M/s Gyan Construction Company and Ms. Purnima Narendra Madhani (Assessee) duly signed and submitted by both parties, affidavit of Mr. Varun Narendra Madhani S/o Assessee and partner of M/s. Gyan Construction Company and affidavit of Mr. Pravin Vasant Arudhekar (Sr. accountant)

On the contrary, Ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee by submitting that it clearly appears from the impugned order that various opportunities have been given to the Assessee but the Assessee availed none and therefore the Assessee is not entitled for any leniency.

Heard the parties and perused the relevant material on record. As observed above, the assessment proceedings were carried out during Covid-19 which resulted into passing the assessment order on dated 26.03.2021 and thereafter the Assessee filed her appeal on dated 26.04.2021 which was taken into consideration only on 28.08.2024 i.e. after 4 years from filing of the appeal. Though reasons stated by the Assessee are not sufficient for non appearance before the Ld. Commissioner, however, it is admitted that in the absence of relevant documents. Ld. Commissioner failed to decide the issue involved in its right perspective and proper manner and therefore for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, however, subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days from the date of this order.

The Assessee and in order to substantiate her claim would be at liberty to file additional evidences before the Ld. Commissioner as per Rule 46 of the Rules. The Ld. Commissioner is directed to examine the issue without being influenced by any observation made by this Court in the instant order.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.