SANDEEP BABULAL JAIN HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -20, Mumbai [in short ‘the CIT(A)] dated 06/12/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16.

Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that in this appeal the assessee has assailed an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A). The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the only reason for making addition by the Assessing Officer is that the notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ' the Act') were not responded by the parties from whom the assessee had made purchases. During assessment proceedings, the assessee had furnished various documents including PAN details, purchase bills, ledger accounts, confirmations from the respective parties to prove genuineness of the vendors and the purchases. The Assessing Officer without considering the same made addition of the entire unproved purchases. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further pointed that there is discrepancy in the dates mentioned in the assessment order. In para 4.7 of the order the Assessing Officer has mentioned that assessee has submitted copy of ledger account through mail on 27/12/2017, whereas the assessment order has been passed on 22/12/2017. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further submitted that the assessee has furnished all the relevant documents before the CIT(A), however, the assessee could not attend the proceedings before the First Appellate Authority as no notice was ever received by the assessee. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee has a prima-facie good case in its favour. The assessee is well aware of the fact that it would not gain by not appearing before the CIT(A). The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee prayed that if an opportunity is granted to present the case before the CIT(A), the assessee would be able to substantiate its contentions alongwith documentary evidences, which are part of record.

Per contra, Ms. Smita Verma, representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that the CIT(A) has given several notices to the assessee which were duly served, however, despite sufficient opportunity the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A). 4. Both sides heard, orders of authorities below examined. The CIT(A) in an ex- parte proceedings have confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIT(A) had issued notice to the assessee on five occasions and all the said notices were duly purportedly served on the assessee. Without commenting on the merits of the addition, in the interest of justice I deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the file of CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to appear before the CIT(A) upon service of notice and co-operate in the proceedings. The impugned order is set-aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.