KALSARIA DIAMONDS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(2)(2), MUMBAI

On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri B. Jaykumaran, contended that in spite of providing opportunities on various dates, the assessee did not avail the same ultimately ex-pare order was framed by the Assessing Officer as well as by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Without going into much deliberation/merits of the case, we find that assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) by the ld. Assessing Officer as the assessee did not appear before him. Likewise, nobody appeared before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), consequently, ex-parte order, qua the assessee, was passed. In view of these facts, one clear fact is oozing that the assessee neither appeared before the Assessing Officer nor before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Before us, on questioning by the Bench with respect to non-appearance before the Authorities the Director of the assessee company, who appeared personally, explained that the earlier chartered accountant did not appear before them, it was beyond their control. However, we are of the view that no person should be condemned unheard. At the same time, since the assessee did not appear nor explained his position before the authorities, we imposed Rs.25,000/- which is to be deposited by the assessee in Prime Minister relief fund within twenty days from the receipt of this order by the assessee. If the assessee deposits the money, as stated hereinabove, the assessee is directed to appear before the ld. Assessing Officer within one month from the receipts of the order and will show the receipts of the deposit of the aforesaid amount, thereafter, the ld. Assessing Officer shall hear the case of the assessee on merit afresh for which due opportunity of being heard be provided to the assessee. If the assessee fails to deposit the aforementioned amount of Rs.25,000/- within the stipulated period and further if the assessee does not appear before the Assessing Officer within one month, the ld. Assessing Officer is free to decide the appeal of the assessee on the basis of material available with him. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 07/12/2015