RAMESH R. CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 17(3), MUMBAI

Since the appeals have been filed involving common issues arising out of identical set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order.

When the appeals were called for hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessees to represent the cases. However, applications seeking adjournment have been placed on record. Considering the nature of dispute, the assessee’s requested for adjournment was rejected and the appeals were taken up for hearing in the presence of the learned Departmental Representative.

In grounds no.1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of both the appeals, which are identically worded, the assessees have challenged the ex–parte disposal of their appeals by learned Commissioner (Appeals).

Brief facts common in both the appeals are, while completing the assessment for the impugned assessment year in case of both the assessees, the Assessing Officer made disallowance under section 14A r/w rule 8D. Further, the Assessing Officer also disallowed assessee’s claim of expenditure while computing short term capital gain on transfer of shares. Contesting the aforesaid disallowances, both the assessees preferred appeals before the first appellate authority.

As could be seen from the impugned orders passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), since, the assessees either did not appear or sought adjournment on more than one occasions, he proceeded to dispose off the appeals ex–parte confirming the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.

We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the grounds raised, the assessees are aggrieved with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in disposing off the appeals ex–parte after refusing the request of the assessees for adjourning the hearing for a short period. Further, it is noticed from the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the first date of hearing i.e., 12th February 2018, the assessees did not appear. However, on subsequent dates i.e., 20th March 2018, and 15th June 2018, the assessees appeared and 4 Ramesh R. Chheda & Rasik K. Chheda sought adjournment and the hearing of appeals were adjourned to 13th August 2018. As could be seen from the ground no.1.3, though, the assessee did not appear before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on 13th August 2018, however, he appeared on 14th August 2018 and furnished a letter seeking a short adjournment. It is further noticed that learned Commissioner (Appeals) ignoring the request of the assessee has disposed off the appeals on 14th August 2018 itself. After considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the assessees deserve an opportunity to argue their case on merits before learned Commissioner (Appeals), as various aspects relating to the disputed issues could not be canvassed before learned Commissioner (Appeals) due to non–appearance of the assessees on the last date of hearing. Accordingly, we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issues relating to the disputed addition/disallowance back to his file for de novo adjudication after due opportunity of being heard to the assessees. Simultaneously, we also direct the assessees to appear before learned Commissioner (Appeals) and co–operate in finalizing the proceedings by properly representing their case on merits. With the aforesaid observations, the grounds raised by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 15.01.2020