IBRAHIM MUHAMMED,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

For the AY 1999-2000, the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of NIL. The AO subsequently initiated proceedings u/s. 148 and completed the assessment u/s. 144 making substantial addition rejecting the claim of the assessee that income derived from Dwaraka Tourist Home, Golden Regency and V K Theatre are business income only. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of AO.

The assessee was given notices on various occasions by the CIT(A) posting the hearing . The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and therefore the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by following various judicial pronouncements considering the merits available on record.

The ld. AR during the course of hearing submitted that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) due to health issues and also due to COVID restrictions. The ld. AR therefore prayed for an opportunity in the interest of justice.

The ld. DR supported the orders of the CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We notice that the various dates of hearing posted by the CIT(A) were during the COVID period sent by Registered Post. The order of CIT(A) does not mention anything about service of notice. The assessee has denied that he received any notice from the office of the CIT(A). We see merit in the submission of the assessee that due to COVID lockdown, the notice sent by registered post did not reach the assessee to appear before the CIT(A). Therefore in the interest of justice, we remit the issue back to CIT(A) to examine the issue afresh after reasonable opportunity to the assessee, for all the assessment years since the facts being identical in all the appeals. Assessee is directed to cooperate in the proceedings.

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.