VARINDER SINGH GOSAL,JALANDHAR vs. ITO WARD - 4(2) JALANDHAR, JALANDHAR

The matter carried in appeal before the ld. first appellate authority has been dismissed for non-compliance to various notices issued from the office of the ld. first appellate authority on various dates even after seeking an adjournment in course of appellate proceedings (as per para 3 of the appellate order) which proves service of notice. In absence of any response or any submission explaining the cash deposit, the appeal has been dismissed without adjudication on merits of the case in absence of any documentary evidences, being filed before the appellate authority.

Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on various grounds contained in Form No. 36 and the main grievance of the assessee is against valid service of statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, and is aggrieved on account of non- adjudication on the grounds of appeal on the basis of his submission contained in the statement of fact.

The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the additional evidences which the assessee now seek to produce has never been filed or produced after a long gap of 8 (eight) years cannot be accepted at its face value and there are likely chances of the same being manipulated to accommodate the availability of cash required for deposits of the same in bank account.

As such, he prayed for sustaining the appellate order (written submissions also filed by the ld. DR is also taken on record).

We have heard the ld. DR and considered the materials on record and we find that in course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has made all possible attempt to serve the notice on the assessee by all possible means, as provided u/s 282, through speed post through affixation but in spite of the same there has not been any response from the assessee.

In course of appellate proceedings, notices has been issued on three separate occasions and also in the ITBA portal against which the assessee has sought adjournment, but has never filed the documentary evidences and the requisite details which he has now filed by way of this paper book along with application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the I.T. Rules, 1963. Even now also the assessee has not appeared and is not represented by his counsel either and has sought for adjournment. However, in the interest of justice, these additional evidences cannot be accepted at its face value without verification regarding its authenticity.

As such, we set aside the matter back to the files of the Assessing Officer for de- novo fresh assessment after considering the fresh evidences now filed before the Tribunal and to complete the assessment as per procedure, after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to file the fresh evidence before the AO and to fully co-operate in fresh assessment proceedings.

Before concluding, we are of the opinion that there has been intentional neglect on the part of the assessee in furnishing of documentary evidences before the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A) in course of appellate proceedings. There is no reason pointed out by the assessee as to why these documentary evidences (consisting of 152 pages) could not have been filed before the ld. first appellate authority when adjournment has been sought, which indicates that he was fully aware of the ongoing proceedings before the appellate authority and yet chose not to furnish evidence.

Considering the neglect and non-co-operative nature of the assessee, we deem it fit and proper to impose a token cost of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) payable to the credit of the ‘Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund’ within 30 days from the date of communication of this order (evidence to be filed before JAO).

We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and all issues are left open.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.