MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL (HUF),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD-24(2)(4), MUMBAI

AadoSa / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], Appeal No. CIT(A)-36/IT-656/ITO 24(2)(4)/2016-17 vide order dated 30.10.2018. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, ward-24(2)(4), Mumbai (in short ITO/ AO’) for the A.Y. 2014-15 vide order ITAs No. 7523/Mum/2018 dated 31.12.2016 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

raised before us is that the CIT(A) decided the issue ex-parte without providing the opportunity of being heard to the assessee and even no communication from the office of CIT(A) was received regarding fixation of appeal. For this assessee has raised the following ground: -

1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the appeal ex-parte without providing the reasonable opportunity of being heard and on ignoring the bonafide reasons which had precluded the appellant to participate in appellate proceedings, accordingly a prayer is made to re-instate the appeal back to file of Ld. CIT(A);"

3. We have noticed that the order of CIT(A) is ex-parte and even the CIT(A) confirmed the addition simply on the basis of AO’s finding. The relevant para 4.7 of the CIT(A) reads as under:

4.7 It is clearly concluded that the appellant is in habit of non-compliance of notices issued with the department. Having been granted so many opportunities neither appellant nor his representative appeared before the undersigned. In view of the above facts, it is concluded that the assessee has no evidence to support his claim. In this case it is established that it is one of the beneficiaries of the bogus LTCG and has incurred expenses on 3 ITAs No. 7523/Mum/2018 commission paid to romoters and brokers. The appellant has challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer. In view of the fact that the appellant has not produced any evidence in support of its contention during appellate proceedings, the addition made by the AO is upheld and the ground of appeal is dismissed.

On query from the Bench, the learned Sr. Departmental Representative agreed that the matter can be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being hearing to the assessee. We have noticed from the CIT(A)’s order that no doubt the CIT(A) has allowed many opportunities and assessee may remain absent despite various notices. It is not brought to our notice whether these notices were served on the assessee or not. In any case, we are remitting this appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) and set aside the order of CIT(A). Needless, to say that the assessee will present before CIT(A) as and when called for hearing of the appeal.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19-03-2019. (मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल / MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (महावीर स िंह /MAHAVIR SINGH) (लेखा दस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (न्याययक दस्य/ JUDICIAL MEMBER) मुिंबई, ददनािंक/ Mumbai, Dated: 19-03-2019. स दीप सरकार, व.निजी सधिव / Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS