SRI VINAYAGA AQUA MINERALS,DHARMAPURI vs. ITO WARD 1, DHARMAPURI

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Salem, in Appeal No.92/2017-18 dated 20.03.2019 for the AY 2010-11.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm running water purifier plant and water Bottling Plant and filed its return of income for the AY 2010-11 on 31.12.2012 admitting a total income of Rs.15,730/-. It was found that the assessee made high value bank transactions to the tune of Rs.13,46,300/-. During the year under consideration through its partner’s account in ICICI bank transactions were not reflected in the accounts of the firm return of income filed by the assessee for the AY 2010-11. Hence, the AO believed that the income had escaped and notice was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2017 and the same was served on the assessee on 31.03.2017. After considering the submissions of the assessee the ld.AO concluded the assessment and assessed the total income of Rs.13,62,030/-.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) has issued hearing notice to the assessee but the assessee failed to appear before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order confirming the orders passed by the AO.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances, the assessee was not able to substantiate the case of the assessee before the lower authorities and he pleaded for one more opportunity.

Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that both the authorities have given sufficient opportunities to the assessee but there was no response from the assessee. Hence, the authorities below passed an ex-parte order.

We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below.

Admittedly, the AO had passed assessment order u/s.144 of the Act and the Ld.CIT(A) had also passed an ex-parte order. The contention of the assessee’s representative is that due to unavoidable circumstances, the assessee/his representative failed to appear before the authorities below. Considering the facts and circumstances of the assessee’s case, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case before the AO.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.