SHRI DEVENDRA SWARUPCHAND SHINGAVI,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A),, PUNE-11, PUNE

Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted by him, the ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Limited vs. CIT 38 taxmann.com 448 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Dr. Vandana Gupta vide (Delhi HC) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to prolonged suffering from major depressive disorder with psychotic factures, the assessee was not able to appear before the CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and ignoring the various decisions relied on by the assessee cited in the statement of facts, dismissed the appeal which is not correct.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee specifically drew the attention of the Bench to the following decisions cited in the statement of facts filed before the CIT(A):

He submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case before the CIT(A).

The Ld. DR on the other hand, strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Referring to the order of CIT(A), he submitted that as many as six opportunities were granted to the assessee and the assessee neither responded to the notices so issued nor filed any adjournment application before the CIT(A) and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) had no other option but to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record. He submitted that the CIT(A) has also given reasoned order relying on various decisions and decided the issue on merits. Therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) should be upheld.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A). It is an admitted fact that despite six opportunities granted by the CIT(A), there was no response from the side of the assessee for which the CIT(A) was constrained to pass the ex-parte order. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee in the statement of facts filed before the CIT(A) had relied on various decisions to support his case but the Ld. CIT(A) has not at all considered the same. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case before the CIT(A). Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) and submit the requisite details on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.