PAREKH GOLD HOUSE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 13(1)(3), MUMBAI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We noticed that the assessee has filed this appeal in the month of February, 2017 and notices were sent by the Registry to the assessee by registered post. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

In this appeal the assessee is contesting addition of ` 193.51 lakhs relating to suppressed sales worked out by the Assessing Officer.

We noticed that the assessee did not furnish any submissions before the learned CIT(A) and it was taking adjournments on every occasion. Hence, the learned CIT(A) was constrained to confirm the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Learned DR submitted that the addition confirmed by the learned CIT(A) does not call for any interference. However, we noticed that the assessee has not presented its case before the learned CIT(A) and hence, in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present its case before the learned CIT(A). Since the assessee has failed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on several occasions, we are of the view that the assessee should be bear a cost for its non- cooperation before the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we impose a cost of ` 2000/- upon the assessee, which shall be paid to the credit of Income Tax Department as “other fees” within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order of the Tribunal. Subject to the payment of above cost, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for examining it afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to cooperate with the learned CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 27.8.2018.