DILIP JAYANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 4(3), MUMBAI

Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not appear before CIT(A) for reasons beyond his control. However, CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order, without hearing the assessee. Accordingly, she prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present his case before CIT(A).

Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not appeared before the AO also and hence he was constraint to pass the order u/s. 144 of the Act to the best of his judgement.

In the rejoinder, ld. AR submitted that the assessee has got all material before it and most of the items were furnished before the AO by way of letter dated 17.3.2015. However, the AO did not refer to them. Accordingly, she submitted that the assessee should be given an opportunity to explain his case properly.

Having regard to the rival submissions, I am of the view that, in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present his case properly. At the same time I am of the view that the assessee should bear a cost of Rs. 5000/- for his failure to appear before the tax authorities. Accordingly, I direct the assessee to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the credit of Income Tax Department as “other fees” on or before 30.11.2017. Subject to the payment of above said fees, I set aside the order passed by CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of the AO with the direction to examine them afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I also direct the assessee to cooperate with the AO for expeditious disposal of the matter.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 2.11.2017.