RAMCHANDRA U CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19 (3)(1), MUMBAI

The brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee is engaged in trading of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. On the basis of information received by DGIT(Inv), Mumbai from Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.22,77,663/- from various suspicious dealers, the assessment in the case of assessee for assessment year 2010-11 was reopened. Despite service of notices issued under section 148 and 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short ‘the Act’), the assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 05/02/2016, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). During the first appellate proceedings the assessee againchoose not to appear before the CIT(A) despite repeated notices. The CIT(A) in an ex-parte proceedings confirmed the findings of Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of assessee. Hence, the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal.

Shri Sanjay J. Sethi, representing the Department submitted that assessee has been non-cooperative during the assessment proceedings as well as the proceedings before the CIT(A). The assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills from declared hawala operators. The Assessing Officer in absence of any evidence to prove genuineness of purchases made addition of 100% bogus purchases. The assessee after filing appeal before the CIT(A) did not bother to appear before CIT(A) despite service of several notices. The CIT(A) had no other option but to decide the appeal in an ex-parte proceedings.

We have heard the submissions made by ld. Departmental Representative and have examined the orders of authorities below. A perusal of assessment order and the impugned order shows that the assessee has failed to appear before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) despite service of notices repeatedly. The conduct of assessee before the authorities below is deplorable. It gives an impression that the assessee has no respect for the law. Keeping aside the past conduct of assessee for the time being, in the interest of justice we deem it appropriate to grant an opportunity to the assessee to appear before the CIT(A) and produce necessary documents to substantiate the submissions. The CIT(A) shall decide the appeal de- novo after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law.

It is made clear that if still the assessee fails to appear before the CIT(A) after proper service of notice, the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to take adverse view.

The impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is restored to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.