JAZAN AGRO TEX PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

NOT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY: 1.1 The National Faceless Appeal Center ("the NFAC") erred in passing an ex - parte order under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") thereby confirming the reassessment order passed by the Income - tax Officer - 1 (2) (1), Mumbai ("the A.O.") under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act in breach of the principles of natural 2 M/s. Jazan Agro Tex Pvt. Ltd. justice, in as much as no sufficient, proper and effective opportunity of being heard given to the Appellant.

Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : from the information available on record Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee has not filed return of income for the year under consideration, but has received contract receipt under section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to the tune of Rs.31,88,201/- and commission under section 194H to the tune of Rs.29,836/- for financial year 2009-10. A computer generated letter for the year under assessment was issued to the assessee for necessary compliance. On failure of the assessee to respond, reopening proceedings have been initiated under section 147/148 of the Act. Inspector deputed to serve the notice on the assessee under section 142(1) of the act reported that he is not residing at the given address. Notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act got duly served on the parties but they failed to respond. Consequently, AO proceeded to make the addition to the tune of Rs.31,88,201/- and Rs.29,836/- under section 194C and 194H respectively of the Act and thereby framed the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act.

Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has upheld the addition by dismissing the appeal. 4 M/s. Jazan Agro Tex Pvt. Ltd. Feeling aggrieved the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeal.

Despite issuance of notice to the assessee company none appeared on behalf of it, so the Bench decided to decide this appeal on the basis of material available on record with the assistance of the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue.

We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and case law relied upon.

Bare perusal of the para 5.1 of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) goes to show that notice under section 250 of the Act was shown to have been issued through ITBA Portal to the assessee but compliance thereof has not been brought on record. When service of the notice of the assessee has not been proved on file, adequate opportunity of being heard appears to have not been provided to the assessee. We are of the considered view that to decide the issue once for all and to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, providing adequate opportunity of being heard is a sine qua non. So this appeal is remitted back to the AO to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee.