Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM
आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 51, Mumbai dated 05/08/2016 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. 2. It was submitted that the CA of the assessee is no more, therefore, on the date fixed for hearing before the CIT(A), neither CA appeared nor he passed message to any other person for appearing. Therefore, CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order. Assessee has also filed an affidavit in support of its contention, which reads as under:-
Jaydeep Devji Palani A F F I D A V I T I, Jayadeep Devji Pal ani , aged 46 years, S/o of Shri Devji Nensey Palani, residing at 209, Nimbus Centre, Off Malad Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400053, do hereby on solemn affirmation state as under:-
That, I am a proprietor of M/s. Nihar Trading Co. engaged in the business of export commission agents.
That, I have filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 19.03.2014 passed by the Income Tax Officer. Ward - 20(l}(3), Mumbai before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 31, Mumbai. 3. That, my tax matters were handled by Shri H L Chheda has filed the appeal against the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A) and he was supposed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A). However, Shri H.L. Chheda expired on 06.09.2014. Thus, the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) was not attended by anyone and Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order dated 05.08.2016. 4. That non-attendance before the Ld. CIT(A) is not deliberate but due to the reasons beyond my control. 5. That, the ex-parte Assessment Order had caused grave injustice to me. Hence, your Honours may be pleased to admit the evidence furnished before your Honours and decide the appeal on merits of the case. 6. That, whatever is stated herein above is true to the best of my knowledge.
I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution on the plea that nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of giving an opportunity. With regard to the merit of the addition, CIT(A) has just stated that assessee has not produced any evidence in support of the disallowance so made by the AO. In terms of the affidavit