SIRI RAM SETHI (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 36(5), NEW DELHI

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the AO has completed the assessment u/s. 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short “Act”) by passing an exparte order 07.12.2018 without giving the opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. He further stated notices u/s. 142(1) were issued on 18.10.2018 and 02.11.2018 and a final notice on 29.11.2018, but the assessee could not comply with the notices due to the fact that assessee is HUF and Karta of HUF had passed away on 19.4.2018 and hence, all the notices were unattended and as a result thereof the exparte order dated 07.12.2018 u/s. 144/147 of the Act was passed. He further stated that during the 1 appellate proceedings the assessee has submitted all the relevant documents/ information to substantiate its claim. However, on the contrary, Ld. CIT(A) mentioned in his impugned order that assessee had not provided any evidence to prove that the business of M/s Travel Solutions had been transferred. In view of above, he requested that in the interest of justice the issues in dispute may be set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication and appreciation of all the evidences filed by the assessee for substantiating the claim of the assessee.

On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and stated that the assessee remain non-cooperative before the AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, requested that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

I have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the order of the revenue authorities. I find that AO has completed the assessment u/s. 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by passing an exparte order 07.12.2018 without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. I further find considerable cogency in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that AO had issued notices u/s. 142(1) on 18.10.2018 and 02.11.2018 and a final notice on 29.11.2018, but the assessee could not comply with the notices due to the fact that assessee is HUF and Karta of HUF had passed away on 19.4.2018 and hence, all the notices were unattended and due to this situation, the exparte order dated 07.12.2018 u/s. 144/147 of the Act was passed by the AO. I further note that Assessee’s AR before me has stated that assessee has submitted the relevant documents/ information to substantiate its claim before the Ld. CIT(A). But in the impugned order, it has been mentioned that assessee has not provided any evidence to prove that the business of M/s Travel Solutions had been transferred. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice the issues in dispute require fresh adjudication at the level of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, I remit back the issues in dispute 2 to the files of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider all the evidences to be filed by the Assessee. Assessee is at liberty to file any evidences for substantiating its claim before the AO and fully cooperate in the assessment proceedings before the AO and did not take any unnecessary adjournment.

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.