ASHWIN BALLABCHAND PARAKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 18(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The Ld Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that both the tax authorities were constrained to pass the order ex-parte, in the absence of representation from the side of the assessee. She further submitted that the main addition made by the AO was related to short term capital gains, which was added without deducting the cost of asset. She submitted that the asset sold by the assessee was a long term capital asset and not short term capital asset, as presumed by the AO. Other addition was also made by the AO for want of evidences. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee could not appear before the tax authorities for reasons beyond his control. Accordingly, she prayed that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly before the AO. She prayed that the matters may be restored to the file of the assessing officer, since he is required to verify the factual aspects relating to the additions.

We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. Having regard to the submissions made by Ld A.R, we are of the view that, in the interests of natural justice, the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly before the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of the AO. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the AO for expeditious completion of the assessment proceedings. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with the law.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed.