RAHUL VASANT TAKALKAR,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(6),, PUNE

The appeal of assessee and Stay Application were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the additional grounds taken by the assessee which read as under: "The Id. Assessing officer erred in completing the assessment proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3) as the Assessee has fully co- operated during the entire Assessment proceedings. The Assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and explain his case after the show cause notice dt. 19/03/2013 was issued. The consequential Assessment Order is invalid in law as the ld. Assessing Officer did not allow reasonable opportunity to be heard to the Assessee." The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that, assuming the show cause notice dated 19-03-2013, requiring compliance by the assessee on 25-03-2013, was received on 20-03- 2013, has effectively provided only 2 days to prepare the submissions and collect relevant evidence, because 23-03-2013 and 24-03-2013 were holidays on Saturday (half day) and Sunday. Therefore the Assessing Officer has not provided sufficient and meaningful opportunity to the assessee to file the submissions and to produce the relevant evidence. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in rejecting the request of the assessee for admission of additional evidence. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that sufficient opportunity was not granted by the Assessing Officer to produce the relevant evidence.

On going through the record, we find that the appeal of assessee was filed after delay of 106 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit in this regard explaining the reasons for delay. In view of the same, we condone the delay in filing the appeal late before the Tribunal.

The assessee before us is aggrieved by ex parte order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and also the order passed by CIT(A) without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. It was further pointed out that the Counsel of assessee Shri V.S. Karamarkar had died during appellate proceedings and hence, there was default in appearance before the CIT(A). It is further pointed out by the assessee that an opportunity to adduce evidence may be allowed to the assessee as the CIT(A) had failed to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Further, the CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the request of assessee for admission of additional evidence.

We find merit in the plea of assessee as the principles of natural justice require proper opportunity of hearing to be allowed to the assessee. It also provides that no person should be condemned unheard. In view thereof, we remit this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to appear before the Assessing Officer and furnish requisite information in order to establish its case. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

The assessee has also filed Stay Application. Since the issue has been set aside to the file of Assessing Officer, Stay Application moved by the assessee is therefore, dismissed.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Application of assessee is dismissed.