SHIV LAXMAN RATHOD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO-25(1)(2), MUMBAI

When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee to represent the case. There is no application seeking adjournment either. Considering the nature of dispute, I proceed to dispose off the appeals ex–parte qua the assessee after

Brief facts are, the assessee is an individual. As it appears from the assessment order, on the basis of AIR information indicating that the assessee has made cash deposits to his Bank account amounting to ` 10.28 lakh, which has not been offered to tax, the Assessing Officer re–opened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. As observed by the Assessing Officer, since the assessee was not found in the address available with the Department, the notices issued under section 148 of the Act as well as under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, were served on the assessee by way of affixture as the notices sent by post returned back un–served. As the assessee did not appear in the assessment proceedings and comply with the notices issued, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 r/w section 147 of the Act to the best of his judgment. While doing so, he added back the entire cash deposit of ` 10,28,770, to the income of the assessee.

In the course of hearing of appeal contesting the aforesaid addition, the assessee himself appeared before the first appellate authority to represent his case. However, as observed by learned Commissioner (Appeals), since the assessee was unable to furnish any 3 Shiv Laxman Rathod supporting evidence, the addition was sustained by dismissing the appeal.

in the present appeal, the assessee has raised a ground stating that due to lack of financial resources, the assessee himself appeared before learned Commissioner (Appeals) and due to lack of education and knowledge, he could not effectively represent his case leading to dismissal of appeal. It is evident from the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), he has dismissed the appeal by observing that the assessee himself stated that he does not have any supporting document to substantiate his claim. There is no further discussion by learned Commissioner (Appeals) on merits. From the aforesaid facts, it appears that the assessee while appearing in person was unable to represent his case properly before the first appellate authority. Therefore, I consider it fair and reasonable to set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication so that the assessee will get an opportunity to properly represent his case before the Assessing Officer by filing supporting evidence to establish his case. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issue afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds raised are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.