H S RAMESH ,NANJANGUD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE

The assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of executing labour contracts. In the assessment completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act [Act] vide order dt. 26-12-2016, the AO added a sum of Rs.16,23,513/- which was the difference in contract receipts as recorded in the books of account of assessee and the contract receipts as reflected in Form 26AS (Form of Tax Deducted at Source).

Against the aforesaid addition, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for the only reason that along with the appeal memo, the assessee did not file the original notice of demand u/s. 156 in Form 7.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee produced before us a copy of the original notice of demand u/s. 156 of the Act and has prayed that the order of CIT(A) should be set aside and the appeal of assessee should be considered as proper and should be admitted and adjudicated on merits.

We have considered the rival submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and are of the view that the order of CIT(A) should be set aside and the assessee should be allowed an opportunity to produce the original notice of demand before CIT(A). Without going into the correctness or otherwise of the action of the CIT(A) in insisting for production of the original notice of demand u/s.156 of the Act as a condition precedent for valid institution of appeal before CIT(A), we are of the view that the Assessee should not be denied the benefit of right of appeal merely on technicalities. The CIT(A) on production of the original notice of demand shall treat the appeal of assessee as proper and admit the same and adjudicate the appeal in accordance with law. We hold and direct accordingly.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.