GURUDUTT KINI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(1)(4), MUMBAI

During hearing of this appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Dharmvir Gandhi, filed certain details, which could not be furnished before the ld. Assessing Officer as during the relevant time, due to ill health of the assessee, therefore, assessment u/s 144 of the Act was framed. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri V.S. Jadhav, contended that the ld. Assessing Officer should be granted opportunity to examine the claim of the assessee.

2.1. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee declared income of Rs.4,554,850/- , in his return filed on 31/10/2007, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Later on, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny, therefore, notice u/s 143(2) dated 23/09/2008 was served upon the assessee. Again, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 25/09/2009, along with questionnaire was also served upon the assessee. The assessee did not respond to the aforesaid notices, therefore, the assessment was framed u/s 144 of the Act. On questioning by the Bench for non- appearance of the assessee, it was explained by the ld. counsel, due to ill health, the assessee could not respond to the notices. Without going into much deliberation, it is noted that the assessment was framed u/s 144 of the Act as the assessee could not respond to the notice issued by the ld. Assessing Officer. The assessee was explained to be a small tailor. In view of Article-265 of Constitution of India only due taxes has to be levied/collected, therefore, I am of the opinion that the assessee may be heard again with liberty to furnish evidence, if any, in support of his claim. The ld. Assessing Officer is directed to examine the claim of the assessee and decide in accordance with law. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.