MOHMMED AMINKHAN SIKANDARKHAN PATHAN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(10), AHMEDABAD

The registry has noted that there is a delay of 31 days in filing above appeal. The assessee by way of a notarized affidavit submitted that he has not opened the site of the Department which has resulted in unintended delay of 31 days in filing the above appeal whereas the assessee has filed all relevant details by way of paper book and requested to condone the delay. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned above and hereby condone the delay of 31 days in filing the appeal.

At the outset, the assessee filed various details namely bank statement of ICICI bank and Bank of Baroda and copy of sale deed etc. The ld. counsel appearing for the assessee submitted the matter be set aside back to the file of Assessing Officer by giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Whereas Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue submitted that the assessee failed to appear even before the CIT(A) in spite of adequate opportunities given to the assessee, therefore, a cost may be imposed for non- response to the hearing notices.

We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused materials available on record. Since the relevant documents are filed for the first time before this Tribunal, we deem it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer by imposing a cost of Rs. 5000/- payable by the assessee to the Income Tax Department. On production of payment receipt of the above cost to the Assessing Officer, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer will give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then pass assessment order in accordance with law.

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