EVERILDA MARLENE D,MELLO,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 12(1)(3), MUMBAI

ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] dated 23.09.2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. Sh. Nishit Gandhi appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the 2. assessee is a senior citizen. The assessment for AY 2014-15 was made under section 2 आअसं. 7161/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2014-15) (A.Y.2014-15) 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. The Assessing Officer (AO) had issued notice under section 148 on 26.03.2018. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return of income on 13.04.2018. Thereafter, the AO issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act to the assessee through ITBA Computer System, however, the said notices were not served on the assessee. The AO completed the assessment after invoking the provisions of section 144 of the Act. The assessee assailed the assessment order dated 18.12.2018 before the CIT(A) interalia assailing re-opening of assessment, assessment made u/s. 144 of the Act and merits of the additions. The ld. counsel for the assessee appeared before the CIT(A) and furnished brief written submission and prayed for time to file detailed submissions. The CIT(A) decided the appeals of assessee on the brief submissions submit by the counsel of the assessee and refuse to mark his presence as by that time no Power of Attorney was filed by the Counsel before the CIT(A). The ld. counsel submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in not considering the request of the counsel of assessee to grant time and at the same time accepting the submissions from him. The ld. counsel submitted that if the case is restored back to the AO, the assessee would be able to show that no addition is warranted.