AYANANKA BOSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-20(1), CHENNAI

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -7, Chennai, dated 31.03.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2014-15.

No one appeared for the assessee inspite of service of notice by RPAD. The Registry has placed on record the postal acknowledgement as proof of service of notice to the assessee. There may be various reasons for the assessee for not appearing before this Tribunal after receiving the notice by RPAD. One of the reasons presumably is that the assessee may not be interested in prosecuting the appeal. Whatever may be the reason for non-appearance before this Tribunal after receiving the notice of hearing, this Tribunal is expected to dispose the appeal on merit. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose the appeal on merit.

Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has not appeared even before the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal. On merit, the Ld. D.R. submitted that there was difference of ₹28,96,089/- between the data available in Form 26AS and the return of income filed by the assessee. According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that the amount of ₹28,96,089/- was received during the financial year 2013-14 as professional advance and the same was offered for taxation in the assessment year 2015-16. In the absence of any material, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Having heard the Ld. D.R., we perused the relevant material available on record including the orders of both the authorities below. The assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that the advance of ₹28,96,089/- was received during the financial year 2013-14 towards professional advance and the same was offered for taxation in the assessment year 2015-16. This fact was not examined by the CIT(Appeals) and the CIT(Appeals) has simply dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee did not appear before him even after service of notice. Under the scheme of Income-tax Act, the CIT(Appeals) has onerous responsibility. The CIT(Appeals) is empowered to enhance the assessment after examining the details of the income furnished by the assessee. Therefore, merely because the assessee has not appeared before the CIT(Appeals), the CIT(Appeals) has no power to dismiss the appeal of the assessee. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) is expected to call for records from the Assessing Officer even though the assessee has not appeared before him and dispose the appeal on merit by a speaking order. Since such an exercise was not done by the CIT(Appeals), this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined.

It is made clear that if the assessee has not appeared before the CIT(Appeals) after service of notice, it is open to the CIT(Appeals) to dispose the appeal on merit on the basis of the material already available on record including the assessment records.