REEF TRADE DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), SURAT

2 2. Identical issues are involved in these two appeals and the grounds are similarly worded except variation in the quantum of the additions made under section 68/69 of the Act.

At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the main grievance of the assessee in both the appeals is that the ld.CIT(A) neither had given proper opportunity of hearing nor served the impugned notices for hearing to the assessee, and therefore, the ex parte order passed by the ld.CIT(A) being violative of principle of the nature justice, liable to be set aside, the assessee may be given further opportunity for defend its case before the first appellate authority. To support this contention, an affidavit of Shri Chitan Nandrajog, Director of the assessee company has been filed and placed on record. In the affidavit it was stated that Shri Ashit Macvan, Chartered Accountant, who was handling the income tax matters of the assessee provided his email for all correspondence, and pursuant to receipt of first notice by the CIT(A), the assessee sought adjournment for filing necessary evidence to defend its case. However, the assessee neither received any further notices on the above email nor received any physical copy of the notice, resulting into passing of impugned ex parte order. That even the assessee has filed most of the details barring a few before the AO, for which the assessee took time for compilation.

We have heard both the sides, and gone through the impugned orders of the Revenue authorities. The ld.CIT(A) has disposed of the appeal of the assessee ex parte. His order notes that various notices were issued to the assessee, all of which purportedly went un- responded, leading the ld. CIT(A) to conclude that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.