DEVYANI PRAKASH JOISHER,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-27(1)(4), MUMBAI

We have heard Shri Bhadresh Joshi, learned Authorised Representative and Ms. Smita Verma, learned Departmental Representative.

The basic grievance of the assessee in the present appeal is against the ex parte disposal of her appeal by learned Commissioner (Appeals), that too, in limine and through a non speaking order.

Briefly the facts are, the assessee is an individual. In the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed her return of income on 29-09-2010 declaring total income of Rs.65,158/-. Assessment in case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 8-03-2016 by making certain additions which enhanced the income to Rs.30,27,990/-. Against the assessment order so passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). By the impugned order, learned Commissioner (Appeals), has disposed of assessee’s appeal ex parte by dismissing it without deciding the issues on merit.

Having considered the submissions of the parties, we find that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of assessee’s appeal ex parte. Though, at paragraph 5.2.1 of the appellate order, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has stated that hearing notices were issued to assessee online and was served on the assessee; however, the learned Counsel appearing for the assessee has disputed this. He has submitted that no such notices alleged to have been sent by learned Commissioner (Appeals) were ever received by the assessee. Be that as it may, it is a fact on record that the appeal of the assessee has been decided ex parte. Further, there is dispute with regard to service of hearing notice issued online. We have further noticed that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has simply dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding the issues / grounds raised