FIROZ AZIZ SAYED,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(1)(3), MUMBAI

Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a hawker selling fabrics on the road. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act since deposits of around ` 26 lakhs was found in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer and hence the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act to the best of his judgement. Before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee did not appear and filed letters of adjournment. The learned CIT(A) granted two opportunities and finally dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Learned AR submitted that the assessee was not properly instructed in this matter and accordingly prayed that an opportunity may be given to the assessee to present his case properly.

I heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. Since both the tax authorities have passed ex-parte order, without the presence of the assessee, I am of the view that, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present his case properly before the Assessing Officer. However, since the assessee has failed to appear before both the authorities, I am of the view that the assessee should be imposed a cost. Accordingly, I impose a cost of ` 5000/- upon the assessee, which shall be paid on or before 30.9.2017 to the credit of the Income Tax Department as “other fees". Subject to the payment of above cost, I set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore all the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining them afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 18.9.2017.