HEMA KEKUL CHOKSI,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded several opportunities of hearing to furnish details, clarifications, and explanations to substantiate its claim. However, despite being granted sufficient opportunities, the assessee remained non-compliant and failed to furnish the requisite details or explanations before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee as ex-parte. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that notices of hearing were sent on the wrong email ID of the assessee, therefore he could not comply with the notices and further prayed that, given an opportunity, due compliance would Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– be made before the Revenue authorities and would also furnish all the necessary details, clarifications and explanations before the revenue authorities. Considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the matter to the Ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to submit all relevant bank statements, documents and explanations before the Assessing Officer and to strictly comply with the notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above.