MANISH CHANDRAKANT THAKKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 7, PUNE

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in business of trading in gunny bags and derives income from house property, income from profit and gains of business or profession, income from capital gain and 2 income from other sources. He filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year on 26.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.3,74,020/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Information was obtained during the course of search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act in case of Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. that the assessee has made investments to the tune of Rs.1,09,33,250/-. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened under the provisions of section 147 of the Act. Accordingly notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,13,07,379/- u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

Since the assessee did not respond to the various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assesse by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and various other decisions.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that all the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC were addressed to the e-mail id of the consultant with a copy to the assessee. He submitted that the assessee used to forward all the notices to his tax consultant. However, for the reasons best known to him, the tax consultant

The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that adequate opportunity was granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee be dismissed.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that due to non-appearance / non-submission of any details on the appointed day, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC passed an ex-parte order confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the non-appearance was due to the inaction on the part of the then tax consultant. It is also his submission that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Considering the totality of the facts of the case

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent

4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.