PRABHAT R. JHUNJHUNWALA,MUMBAI vs. ASST RG 16(1), MUMBAI

Facts qua the dispute are that the assessee is a resident individual engaged in the business of cable TV operations. He filed his return of income for impugned AY declaring total income of Rs.14,14,282/-. The survey operations conducted on assessee revealed suppression of business receipts and consequently, assessee filed revised return at Rs.19,14,280/- after declaring additional sum of Rs.5.00 Lacs as income arising out of unaccounted activities. The assessee claimed unaccounted expenditure of Rs.24,11,860/- against unaccounted receipts of Rs.47,03,172/- which were not allowed by AO. The assessee contested the same unsuccessfully before the CIT (A). Consequently, penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income and for filing inaccurate particulars of income and an amount of Rs.9,77,210/- was imposed as penalty by AO vide order dated 09/03/2012. The penalty was contested before CIT(A) but none appeared on behalf of assessee except for seeking adjournments despite a number of opportunities. Accordingly, CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte and confirmed the penalty after passing reasoned order. The penalty order was contested by assessee for AY 2006-07 as well as for 2007-2008 and CIT(A) passed combined order dated 12/03/2015 dismissing appeal for both the years. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us qua AY 2007-08 by way of this appeal.

None has appeared before us despite being provided with several opportunities and therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits on the basis of the materials available on record. The learned DR relied upon the stand taken by the CIT (A). We note that one of the grounds raised by the assessee is with respect to violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contended that penalty has been levied without proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, equity demands that assessee deserves another opportunity and substantiate his claim qua penalty before CIT(A). Therefore, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) to provide another opportunity to assessee to contest penalty.