, , ,, , , ,, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E MUMBAI , . . , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO.3477/MUM/2012 ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI SUDHIR C ASRANI, SHOP NO.14, PERSIPOLIS BUILDING, NEAR ANDHRA BANK, SECTOR-17, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI-400705 VS. ITO 14(1)(3), EARNEST HOUSE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI ( !#$ / ASSESSEE) ( % / REVENUE) P.A. NUMBER : AAEPA228A ( !#$ & ' / ASSESSEE BY MS. VASANTI PATEL % & ' / REVENUE BY: SHRI NEIL PHILIP-DR ! & $( / DATE OF HEARING : 17/12/2014 )*' & $( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17/12/2014 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JM: THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DAT ED 27/06/2011 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MU MBAI, ON THE GROUNDS AS STATED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MS. VASANTI PATEL, BROADLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE EX-PARTY, THEREFORE, IT WAS 2 SHRI SUDHIR C ASRANI . PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO EXPLA IN ITS CASE, IF OPPORTUNITY IS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT NO NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, SHRI NEIL PHILIP, DEFENDED THE CO NCLUSION DRAWN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER/IMPUGNED ORDER BY SUB MITTING THAT THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE DI D NOT RESPOND TO THE AUTHORITIES. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDITORS AND UNSECURED LOANS , ETC. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 144 O F THE ACT. WE ALSO NOTE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT NOTICES WERE ISSUED ON THE ADDRESSES AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS WELL AS ON COMPUTE DATA, WHICH WERE RETURNED UN-SERVED. LIKEWISE, BEFORE TH E LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE NOTICES W ERE ISSUED BUT NOWHERE, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT IN FACT THE SE NOTICES, ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS), WERE ACTUALLY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THUS, WITHOUT GOING INTO MUCH DELIBERATION, SINCE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE EX-PARTY ORDER, THER EFORE, WE REMAND THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSE SSEE IS DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WIT HIN FIFTEEN DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER. IF THE ASSESSE E DOES NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WILL BE PRESUMED THAT 3 SHRI SUDHIR C ASRANI . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO SAY. IN THAT SITUATION , THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS FREE TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON T HE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. ASSESSING OF FICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE TO CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT LEN GTH. THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. FINALLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 17/12/2014. SD/- SD/- (R.C.SHARMA) (JO GINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED - 17/12/2014 F{X~{T? P.S/. ! . . & && & +$, +$, +$, +$, -,'$ -,'$ -,'$ -,'$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ./ / THE APPELLANT 2. +0./ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 1 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 1 / CIT 5. ,23 +$! , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 34 5 / GUARD FILE. ! ! ! ! / BY ORDER, 0,$ +$ //TRUE COPY// 6 66 6 / 7 7 7 7 % % % % (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI