PARKASH THAKUR,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH

With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. We find that AO made reference to the information available with the Department on the basis of internal data vide which assessee's transactions during the year have been reflected in the bank accounts as well as sale/purchase of properties. The AO has issued notice under Section 148 but it was not replied by the assessee. Ultimately, he has passed the ex- parte assessment order.

Dissatisfied with the above, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed for want of prosecution. Sub- section (6) of Section 250 contemplates that ld. CIT(A) would state the points in dispute and thereafter record reasons in support of the conclusion on those points. The ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merit, rather dismissed it for want of prosecution which is not in coherence to the mandate provided under sub-section (6) of A.Y.2018-19 3 Section 250 of the Act. No doubt assessee was little bit negligent while prosecuting his litigation with the Income Tax Department but the punishment in the shape of tax liability on the income of Rs.2,18,68,857/- is far disproportionate to the alleged negligence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. We set aside both the impugned orders and restore all these issues to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to participate the assessment proceedings and submit the requisite details as and when called upon by the AO. The assessee is further directed to communicate his latest e-mail address as well as address on which notices can be served. This exercise be completed within two months from the receipt of this order.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.