LADULAL HARAKCAND KANTHER ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 28(2)(1), MUMBAI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We noticed that the Ld.CIT(A) was constrained to pass the order ex-parte, since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by him. Accordingly, we prefer to dispose of this appeal ex-parte without the presence of the assessee.

The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee did not appear before the AOalso and hence he was also constrained to pass the order to the best of his judgement u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟).

However, we noticed that the Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue on merits. Hence, in the interest of natural justice, we restore all the issues before us to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating them on merits.Since the assessee was non-cooperative before both the tax authorities, we are of the view that the assessee should be imposed a cost in order to make him understand the importance of income tax proceedings. Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand) upon the assesseewhich shall be paid to the credit of the Income Tax Department as „Other Fees‟ within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

Subject to payment of the above cost, which shall be verified by the Ld.CIT(A), all the issues are restored to the file of theLd.CIT(A) for adjudicating them on merits. We also direct the assessee to fully co- operate with the Ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal.