PRADEEP SUGANCHAND KAWDIYA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 98,25,112/- u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act?.

Whether, on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act?. Further, appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw all or any ground of appeal.

Per contra, Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, the Ld. SR-DR, supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). He, however, had no objection if the matter was set aside to the file Ld. CIT(A) for allowing another opportunity to the assessee.

We have considered the request of the assessee. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed as many as three opportunities to the assessee but no compliance was made on any occasion. Neither the assessee had requested for adjournment on any of the dates. The assessee had not explained the reason for complete non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, deem it proper to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- on the assessee which should be deposited to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of cost, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to allow one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to explain and make submissions in respect of the grounds as taken before him. The assessee is also directed to make compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and furnish the details and clarifications as required by him. In case the assessee does not make any compliance, the Ld. CIT(A) will have liberty to decide the matter on merits on the basis of materials available on record.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.