Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR
Date of Hearing – 26.10.2017 Date of Order – 03.11.2017
O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.
Aforesaid appeal by the assessee is challenging the order dated 31st March 2015, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–7, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2010–11.
Brief facts are, the assessee an individual is a Doctor by profession. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed his return of income on 15th October 2010, declaring total income of `
2 Dr. Narendra M. Rege 4,61,680. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act calling for various details. However, as alleged by the Assessing Officer neither the assessee responded to the statutory notices nor appeared before him. However, subsequently, the Authorised Representative appeared and furnished the details called for. The Assessing Officer after verifying the details completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 31st March 2013, making a number of additions as a result of which the total income was determined at ` 2,40,43,150. Against the assessment order so passed assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority.
As alleged by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), in spite of opportunity being given to the assessee to appear and represent his case no one appeared. Hence, he proceeded to dispose off assessee’s appeal ex–parte on the basis of material on record and ultimately he did not find merit in any of the grounds raised by the assessee Resultantly, assessee’s appeal was dismissed.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The assessee who was himself present in the Court submitted that the concerned Chartered Accountant who was authorized by the assessee to represent him before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) neither appeared before the first appellate
3 Dr. Narendra M. Rege authority nor intimated the assessee the progress of the proceeding before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) which ultimately resulted in dismissal of assessee’s appeal ex–parte. He submitted, assessee was completely kept in dark by the concerned Chartered Accountant regarding the proceedings before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). He submitted, on a complaint made by him in this regard against the Chartered Accountant, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the Chartered Accountant. He submitted, since the ex–parte dismissal of the appeal was not due to assessee’s fault, an opportunity should be given to the assessee to properly explain the issues relating to the additions before the Departmental Authorities. He, therefore, requested for restoring the issues for fresh adjudication before the Assessing Officer.
Learned Departmental Representative has no objection if the issues are restored back to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication.
On a perusal of material placed before us by the assessee we are of the considered view that the assessee was prevented from having his say before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of the additions made by the Assessing Officer as he remained unrepresented due to circumstances beyond his control. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts of this case, we are inclined to restore all the issues
4 Dr. Narendra M. Rege raised before us to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to comply to the statutory notices to be issued by the Assessing Officer and co–operate in finalization of assessment proceedings. With the aforesaid observations, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03.11.2017