RAMESHKUMAR VYAS, MUMBAI V. ITO WARD-26(2)(1), DIVA

ITA 2171/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6844 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “D” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) I.T.A. No. 2171/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2009-10) Rameshkumar Vyas Shree Krishna Park C-Wing, Room No. 401, Above Abhyudaya Bank Diva Shil Road, Diva-E Thane-400 612. Vs. ITO, Ward 26(2)(1) Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Smt. Mahita Nair Date of Hearing 04.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement 04.10.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and it relates to A.Y. 2009-10. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of Rs. 20,82,510/- levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 512 days. We also noticed that the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer as well as before the learned CIT(A) and hence they were constrained to pass the orders ex-parte. The assessee has filed an affidavit stating that he has shifted his residence to Thane while notices were sent by the tax authorities to his old address located at Kanjurmarg, Mumbai. Accordingly, it is submitted that the assessee did not receive notices and could not appear before the tax authorities. The very same reason has been given for the delay in filing the 2 appeal before the Tribunal. Considering the explanation given by the assessee, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause for the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. Since the orders passed by the tax authorities are ex-parte, we are of the view that the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly before the learned CIT(A), but the same will be at a cost. Accordingly, we impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on the assessee, which shall be paid to the credit of income tax department as “other fees” within sixty days from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of the above said cost, which shall be verified by the learned CIT(A), we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to this file for adjudicating them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to intimate the tax authorities new address and also fully cooperate with the learned CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in on 4.10.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (B.R. Baskaran) Judicial Member Accountant Member Mumbai.; Dated : 04/10/2023 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai. 3 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai