BHARAT MOHANLAL SOLANKI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), PUNE

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2010-11.

Facts of the case, in brief, are, that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of labour contractor and has not furnished his return of income for the period under consideration. On the basis of information that the assessee has deposited cash Rs.32,60,500/- in the account maintained with Axis Bank, the case was reopened u/s 147 and statutory notices u/s 148 and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. The assessee did not comply to any of the notices, therefore the assessment was completed ex-parte u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act by determining total income at Rs.32,60,500/-.

Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the addition of Rs.32,60,500/- made by the Assessing Officer.

It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted that admittedly the appeal was fixed for hearing on 24-01-2025, 17-03-2025 & on 20-03-2025 respectively. However, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC decided the appeal prematurely vide order dated 19-03-2025 which is against the principles of natural justice. Ld. AR however accepted that various notices were issued to the assessee by the Assessing Officer but all those could not be complied due to the fact of change of address, since the assessee shifted to joint family house during that period. Ld. AR submitted Axis Bank account is available with the assessee & if one opportunity is provided to him he will be able to explain the sources of deposit in his bank account. Accordingly Ld. AR requested to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by both the subordinate authorities.

Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and submitted that more than enough opportunities have already been provided to the assessee and no further opportunity should be given to the assessee unless some cost is imposed on him.

We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the affidavit furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that admittedly various notices were issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee and none of the notice was complied by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the assessee was residing in his joint family house whereas the notices were sent on his new address. Apart from above, it was also contended by the assessee that the original/regular counsel, Mr. Sadashiv Khedkar, who filed the appeal, died during Covid period and the documents and details pertaining to the relevant period were with him and the assessee Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and accordingly the appeal hearing date was adjourned to 20.03.2025, however, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC prematurely decided the appeal on 19.03.2025.

Considering the totality of the facts of the case and the submission of Ld. AR, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass assessment order de novo as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. At the same time, because of the careless attitude of the assessee, we levy a cost of Rs.5,000/- on the assessee, which was agreed by Ld. AR, to be deposited within 30 days from receipt of this order, failing which the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC will remain as it is. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer in this regard and produce requisite documents/explanations in support of its contention without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed.