SALMAN MAQSOOD KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD- 31(1)(1), MUMBAI

During the hearing, at the outset, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the assessee filed its response to the notices issued during the course of assessment proceedings, however the Assessing Officer (“AO”) without considering any of the submissions of the assessee proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.74,75,920. The learned AR further Page 2 Salman Maqsood Khan submitted that the assessee could not attend the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) as he could not check the email on which the notices were sent.

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities.

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 20/03/2020. In response to the aforesaid notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 03/03/2021 declaring a total income of Rs.1,76,930. It is evident from the record that subsequently statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section 142(1) along with questionnaires were issued to the assessee calling for details, documents, and evidence in support of the income declared. From the factual paper book filed by the assessee, we find that the assessee filed its response on 05/03/2021 in response to the notice dated 17/02/2021 issued under section 142(1) of the Act. From the copy of the aforesaid response forming part of the paper book from pages 4-61, we find that the assessee, inter-alia, furnished computation of total income, trade details, brokers ledger, summary of bank account, ICICI bank statement, and HSBC bank statement. However, the AO vide order dated 30/07/2021 passed under section 147 of the Act without considering any of these documents proceeded to conclude the assessment on a best-judgment basis. We also find that the AO even issued a show cause notice on the proposed adjustment on 05/07/2021. Therefore, from the aforesaid details, it is sufficiently evident that none of the details filed by the assessee were considered by the AO while passing the assessment order. In the appeal before the learned CIT(A), despite notices being issued, no reply/submission was filed on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, vide impugned ex–parte order dated 29/08/2023, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. In view of the facts and circumstances as noted above, we deem it appropriate to Page 3 Salman Maqsood Khan restore the matter to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication after consideration of the details/submissions filed by the assessee. Needless to mention no order shall be passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish any other information as may be sought by the AO. As the matter is being restored to the file of the AO for consideration afresh, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/02/2024 - (B.R. BASKARAN) (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER