SOMNATH K LANDGE,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(3)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

During hearing, the ld. DR, Shri Om Prakash Meena, defended the addition and also contended that it was the duty of the assessee to remain present on the appointed date.

2.1. I have considered the submissions of the ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee, an individual, and also proprietor of M/s Bhoomi Enterprises engaged in the business of civil/labour job. The ld. Assessing Officer added Rs.35 lakh, claimed as short term capital gain, to the income of the assessee. On appeal, before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), it has been mentioned that on 12/08/2014 and 22/08/2014, notices were issued and nobody represented the assessee. In the absence of any representation from the assessee side, an ex-parte order was passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) by following the decision in CIT vs B.N. Bhattacharya (118 ITR 461). Without going into much deliberation, I find that there is no mention in the order whether the notices were actually served upon the assessee, thus, considering the principle of natural justice, I am of the view that no person should be condemned unheard, therefore, I remand this appeal to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention here that the assessee be given opportunity of being heard with further liberty to furnish evidence, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.