SHRI DHAIRYASHEEL SHIVAJI PATIL,SATARA vs. ACIT CIRCLE, SATARA

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.05.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18.

There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation, duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in business activities at Karad and also he is proprietor of Hotel Vitthal Kamat which runs a restaurant at Karad. The assessee is also proprietor of M/s Shirgaonkar HP Gas Gramin Vitarak, which is running domestic gas distribution business. The assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.39,89,470/- for the year under consideration. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. In reply, the assessee complied to the notices and submitted the information and documents called for in respect of unsecured loans. The assessee explained that the unsecured loans were genuine and these loans were taken for business purpose. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contentions of the assessee and treated the source of the entire amount of Rs.2,06,99,000/- as unexplained and also treated this as his income within the meaning of section 68 of the IT Act and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) determining the taxable income of Rs.2,46,88,470/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.39,89,470/-. The above assessed income Rs.2,06,99,000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act regarding unsecured loan.

Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR further submitted before us that admittedly Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC issued notices for hearing but the assessee was busy in treatment of her mother, therefore could not look into the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, in support of this contention an affidavit duly sworn in by the assessee is also furnished. Accordingly, it was requested by Ld. AR to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & further requested to provide one opportunity to appear before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to the assessee so that he can substantiate the grounds of appeal

We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides & perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that the first appeal order was passed ex-parte since the assessee remained absent before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits of the case 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, with the consent of Ld. AR of the assessee, we levy a cost of Rs.5,000/- 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 Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and produce requisite documents/ additional evidences/explanations in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty