BHADRESHKUMAR SURENDRAKUMAR SHAH,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case, in dismissing the appeal for alleged non-prosecution and the ld.AO has erred in law and on facts of the case, in making assessment u/s.144. 2. Notice issued u/s.148 and the consequential reassessment order passed u/s.144 r.w.s 147 are bad in law.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise.

On going through the record, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has awarded four opportunities of hearing to the assessee. In pursuance to the same, the assessee failed to submit any substantial documents/replies. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-prosecution. We also find that assessee has not complied even before the Assessing Officer. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all the details/clarification/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities. Having gone through the fact, we hold that no prejudice will be caused to the revenue if the Assessing Officer is allowed to examine the details/explanation submitted by the assessee. Hence, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de-novo. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. Asst.Year –2012-13 - 3–

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

अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुᲦ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुᲦ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडᭅ फाईल / Guard file.