ANUJ GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT SPECIAL RANGE-17, NEW DELHI

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in proceedings to dispose of the appeal expartee without granting any fair and proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2.1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that non appearance of the appellant on the date of hearing was neither intentional nor deliberate and is not a case where appellant is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. 2.2. That even otherwise, an order passed in limini without effectively disposing of the grounds raised

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on facts in upholding a disallowance of Rs. 49,600/- by invoking section 40A(3) of the Act.

That both the authorities below have framed the impugned order without granting sufficient proper opportunity to the appellant company and therefore the same are contrary to principle of natural justice and hence vitiated.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest of Rs. 1,96,908/- under section 234B of the Act, and interest of Rs. 95,950/- u/s 234B of the Act which are not leviable on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant.”

The assessee is an individual who filed his return of income on Rs. 3192700/- on 30.10.2015. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed at Rs. 4713570/-. The ld AO made the addition of a. Rs. 1019555/- on account of disallowance of interest expenditure, b. Rs. 421718/- also on account of disallowance of interest, c. Addition of Rs. 30,000/- income not shown by the assessee and d. Rs. 49600/- disallowed u/s 40A (3) of the Act. The assessee preferred appeal before the ld CIT (A). The ld CIT (A) sent five notices of hearing to the assessee and none of them were complied with. Therefore, he dismissed the appeal for non prosecution.

The ld AR submitted that the ld CIT (A) has not granted fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He further submitted that even otherwise the appeal has not been decided on the merits and therefore, the order of the ld CIT (A) cannot be sustained. He submitted that the assessee filed an adjournment petition on 28.05.2019, wherein, the date of hearing was given on 31.05.2019; however, the LD CIT (A) passed an order on 29.05.2019, thus, the assessee did not get any opportunity. He further submitted that on 31.05.2019 the assessee has submitted a submission containing 43 pages but prior to that order was passed. 5. The LD DR vehemently objected the argument of the assessee that the LD CIT (A) adjourned the case on 31.05.2019. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and find that on five different occasions the LD CIT (A) issued notices to the assessee. Assessee did not even care to respond either requesting adjournment or submitting any details. Even the notice dated 10/5/2019 asking assessee to remain present or make submission titled as Final Opportunity on 21/5/2019 even that too is not responded to. Ld DR could show us only one adjournment application that too filed on 28.05.2019 in response to notice dated 24/5/2019 fixing the date of hearing on 28/45/2019 i.e. last date of last hearing. That too was an adjournment application by the advocate of the assessee which says that still advocate has not received the documents from the assessee. Adjournment application submitted is also so bald that it did not say by which time assessee would be filing the details/submission. Even before us there is no explanation why assessee did not respond to the notices. Thus the conduct of the assessee is the most deplorable which clearly show utter defiance to the statutory notices and remorselessly seeking adjournment on the last date. Even otherwise, the ld CIT (A) is a statutory post which is created for the services of the tax payer to resolve their grievance arisisng out of the assessment order. If the assessee does not avail that opportunity despite 5 opportunities intimating him of the appointed dates by speed post, one can estimate how much loss exchequer incurred by the negligent conduct of the assessee. In fact it is money of diligent and careful tax payers that is wasted on such a careless assessee. Thus, we find that conduct of the assessee does not deserve any leniency at this stage. Therefore looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the assessee to deposit of Rs. 5000/- towards contribution to Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund on or before 30.06.2020 towards his gross negligence of none appearance before the ld CIT(A).