SHREEKISHAN JOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of civil and interior construction and also carrying on trading business through his proprietary concern, named, Salasar Exteriors. The AO has reopened the assessment of all these three years on the basis of information received by him that the assessee has taken accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchases. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessments of all the three years u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by making an addition of alleged bogus purchases.

Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee did not respond and hence, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made in all the three years in the ex-parte order passed by him. Hence, the assessee has filed these three appeals.

We heard the parties and perused the record. At the outset, we notice that the Ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds urged by the assessee before him in all the three years on merits, since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by him. In this regard, the Ld.AR submitted that the notices were sent by the Ld.CIT(A) to the wrong e-mail ID and hence, the assessee was not aware of the said notices. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has a good chance to win his case both on legal grounds and also on merits.

We heard the Ld.DR and perused the record. Since the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the orders ex-parte without adjudicating the grounds on merits, we feel it appropriate to restore all the issues to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the Ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the issues raised in all these appeals.