AMIT SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1, HAPUR

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.01.2018 of the CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar relating to A. Y. 2011-12.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, they all relate to the order of the CIT (A) in sustaining the various additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of processing of cotton cloth. He filed his return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.5,44,910/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 143 (3) on 24.02.2014 determining the total income at Rs.19,40,630/- by making various additions. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A). However, despite sufficient opportunities given by the CIT (A) there was either no compliance or adjournment applications were filed. The CIT (A) therefore, decided the appeal ex-parte on the basis of material available on record and sustained the various additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that on the last occasion when the appeal was fixed for hearing before the CIT (A), the assesses sent the adjournment letter through post. However, before the same could reach before the office of the CIT (A), the order was already passed. He submitted that in the interest of justice the matter should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to represent his case.

The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the order of the CIT (A). He drew the attention of the bench to page No.2 of the CIT(A)’s order and submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has granted as many as 12 opportunities to the assessee and on each occasion either the assessee has sought adjournment or there was no compliance. Under these circumstances no further opportunity should be granted to the assessee and the order of the CIT (A) should be upheld.

I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the order of the CIT (A) shows that he had granted number opportunities to the assessee. However, either the assessee has sought adjournment or there was no compliance. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that on the last occasion he had sent the adjournment application but the same could not be delivered at the office of the CIT (A) by the postal department. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice I deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT (A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. The assessee is also hereby directed not to seek any adjournment under any pretext and appear before CIT (A) to substantiate his case failing which the Ld. CIT (A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly.

The appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.