JITENDRA ANANDRAO DESAI, MUMBAI V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4305/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7456 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNI MATHEWS
• Assessee Lawyers: AJIT BHONKAR
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4305/MUM/2023 Assessment Year 2017-18 Jitendra Anandrao Desai, Rooom No.9, 1 st Floor, 116/118, Sagar Chamber, V.V. Chandan Street, Masjid Bunder (West), Mumbai – 400 003. PAN:ANBPD-1163-B - Appellant Vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle – 3(2), Room No.1913, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. - Respondent Appellant by : Shri Ajit Bhonkar Respondent by : Shri Suni Mathews, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29/04/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30/04/2024 O R D E R The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 10/8/2023 passed by ld. CIT(A)-51,Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. I notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee for the reason that the assessee did not respond to various notices issued by him and further presuming that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal the Tribunal. 3. The ld.A.R submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of estimated commission income on the presumption that the business activities carried out by the assessee are not genuine. In that regard, the Assessing Officer has also rejected the books of account of the assessee. The ld.A.R submitted that the assessee could not appear before ld.CIT(A) for the reasons beyond his control and further, the Ld CIT(A) has also not 2 ITA NO.4305/MUM/2023 Assessment Year 2017-18 adjudicated the appeal on merits. Accordingly, he prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for examination of all the issues afresh. 4. I have heard ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record. I notice that the ld.CIT(A) has given several notices to the assessee, but the assessee has failed to respond the notices. Hence, the ld.CIT(A) has proceeded to dismiss the appeal without adjudicating the issues contested on merits. Since the assessee did not get opportunity of hearing and since the ld.CIT(A) has also not adjudicated the grounds on merits, in the interests of natural justice, I am of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case properly before the ld.CIT(A). However, considering the conduct of the assessee, I am of the view that the assessee should be imposed cost in order to make him serious about income tax proceedings. Accordingly, I impose a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) upon the assessee, which shall be paid to the credit of Income Tax Department within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of above cost, which shall be verified by the ld.CIT(A) at the time of hearing, I set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them on merits. I also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th April, 2024. Sd/- (B.R. Baskaran) Accountant Member Mumbai, Date : 30 th April, 2024 VM. 3 ITA NO.4305/MUM/2023 Assessment Year 2017-18 Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The PCIT/CIT concerned 4) The D.R, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai 5) Guard file By Order Dy./Asstt. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai