PRAVEEN BHASKAR RAO,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-24(3)(3), MUMBAI

Brief facts of the case are that in the assessment order assessing officer made 20% disallowance of bus hire charges. Up on assessee's appeal learned CIT-A noted that nobody has represented the assessee despite notice. Hence he drew adverse inference and was of the opinion that the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter he also held that in absence of further evidences he was upholding the order of Assessing Officer.

Against this order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. I have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Learned counsel of the assessee submitted that authorities below have totally erred in appreciating the facts of the case. He submitted that assessee is an individual and he gets ticket for the individual customers in different buses operated by different operators. He submitted that assessee gets only commission. He submitted that assessee has not hired any bus as such.

Up on careful consideration I find that these facts are not arising out of the order of the Assessing Officer. Moreover, I also find that it is incumbent upon the learned CIT-A to pass an order on the merits of the case and not dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. For this proposition I place reliance upon following case laws. 1. CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (Bom)302 2. CIT vs S Chenniappa Mudaliar(1969)74 ITR 1(SC)