ZENAB BAI BOHRA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Bangalore passed under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the order passed by the learned CIT(Appeals) is exparte order.

The Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was holding the agriculture dry lands which are and sold to Trust as per the sale deed dt.20.12.2007 and whereas the Assessing Officer applied the provisions of Section 50C of the Act because there is difference in the guideline value of SRO and the sale consideration. Since the assessee has not filed the Return of Income, the assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act and Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued. Subsequently, Notice under Section 142(1) was issued for submitting the details. The Assessing Officer has verified the documents submitted and since there was no proper compliance in submitting the further details, made Best Judgement Assessment and determined the total income of Rs.1,20,73,980 and passed order under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act dt.28.3.2016. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed appeal with the CIT(Appeals). Whereas the CIT(Appeals) has issued notice of hearing and fixed the case on 7.9.2013 and 19.9.2013 and since there was no appearance on 19.9.2013 another last opportunity was provided to the assessee on 28.9.2013 whereas the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee filed a letter requesting for adjournment due to pressure of tax audit work and since there was no compliance by the assessee/ld. AR on the date of hearing, the CIT(Appeals) decided that the appeal exparte on merits and dismissed the assessee's appeal. Aggrieved by the CIT (Appeals) order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The learned Authorised Representative’s contention that an adjournment petition was filed as the last date of filing the Tax Audit Returns under Section 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2018 and the assessee's A.R. was busy in filing the returns. We found that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is exparte where Assessing Officer has applied the Best judgment assessment and further we are not able to understand why the assessee chooses not to appear before both the lower authorities. But considering the principle of natural justice, we are of the substantive opinion that the assessee for various reasons could not have appeared and Revenue shall not be at a loss if an opportunity is provided to the assessee. Accordingly to meet the ends of justice, we restore the entire disputed issue to the file of the Assessing Officer subject to payment cost of Rs.5,000 to the Income Tax Department within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order and submit proof of payment. The Assessing Officer shall provide adequate