M/S HARI GANAPATI KHARADE,NALASOPARA, MUMBAI vs. ITO, -4(5), , THANE

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Thane [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 01/02/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16.

Notice of hearing of this appeal was sent to the assessee by RPAD. Despite notice neither the assessee nor any authorized representative of the assessee appeared in the Court at the time of hearing.

Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, representing the department vehemently supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has no respect for the law as the assessee never appeared during assessment proceedings and even before the CIT(A), the assessee did not cooperate.

A perusal of the case file shows that the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 19/12/2017 passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) had made addition of Rs.20,50,664/- on account of undisclosed salary income and Rs.1,50,000/- disallowing assessee’s claim of deduction under chapter VI-A. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal was time barred by three months and three days. The assessee filed an application seeking condonation of delay on the ground of medical exigencies. The CIT(A) rejected the reason cited for delay on the ground that the application is not supported by an affidavit and documentary evidence. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation.

Heard. Orders of the authorities below and the material available on record before the Tribunal examined. The assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer despite several notices, hence, the Assessing Officer was constrained to pass the assessment order under section 144 of the Act. Even before the CIT(A), neither the assessee nor any authorised representative of the assessee appeared, except once despite service of notices of the given address and e.mail ID. The assessee/appellant appears to be recalcitrant.

The unruly conduct of the assessee deserves no compassion. However, in the interest of justice and equity one more opportunity is afforded to the assessee to appear before the CIT(A) and furnish affidavit and supportive documentary evidences to back the contentions made in application for condonation of delay.

The CIT(A) shall reconsider the assessee’s application seeking condonation of delay in the light of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Nath Sao vs. Gobardhan Sao & Others reported as 2002 (3) SCC 195.

The assessee is directed to appear before the CIT(A) and co-operate in first appellate proceedings. It is made clear that if the assessee again fails to appear before the First Appellate Authority, the CIT(A) is at liberty to take adverse view. The CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law.

In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, in the terms aforesaid.