IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.1287/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-2008

Smt.Hiraben Gordhandas Kaneliya (Appellant) vs ITO (Respondent)
Date of Order: 20-10-2015

ORDER

PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the CIT(A), Valsad dated 18.3.2014 passed for the Asstt.Year 2007-08.

2. The assessee has taken six grounds of appeal, but her grievance revolves around three issues, viz. (i) the ld.First Appellate Authority has erred in upholding the reopening of the assessment, (ii) the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO at Rs.12,58,227/- and (iii) the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.2,52,000/-.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed her return of income on 30.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs.3,14,520/-. Scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) was made on 21.12.2009 determining the income of the assessee at Rs.3,98,616/-. The ld.AO has reopened the assessment by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.3.2012. He passed re-assessment order on 11.1.2013 and determined taxable income of the assessee at Rs.19,08,840/-.

4. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The ld. First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 18.3.2014.

5. With the assistance of the ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record. The ld.counsel for the assessee has submitted that no doubt the notice of hearing was served upon the assessee by the ld.First Appellate Authority, but the assessee has handed over the papers to her Chartered Accountant, viz. Shri Rajesh Nadkarni, who failed to prosecute the appeal before the ld.First Appellate Authority and ultimately after six opportunities of hearing having been given to the assessee, the ld.CIT(A), has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. He prayed that the impugned order be set aside the matter may be restored to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for adjudication.

6. On the other hand, ld.DR contended that the ld.First Appellate Authority has provided sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is the assessee who failed to avail those opportunities. If the Chartered Accountant was not appearing before the CIT(A), then the assessee ought to have considered these six notices and ought to have inquired about his non-appearance. He prayed that the appeal of the assessee is deserved to be dismissed.

7. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that to some extent negligence is attributable to the assessee, because, in spite of six notices served upon her, she failed to enquire why Chartered Accountant was not appearing. But looking to the facts and circumstances and the punishment in the shape of tax liability, is disproportionate to the ultimate negligence of the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is to be given to the assessee to explain and defend her case. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and restore all the issues to file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. We direct the assessee to appear before the CIT(A) within two months from receipt of copy of this order and file application for taking up the proceedings. The ld.First Appellate Authority shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

8. The observations made by us will not impair or injure the case of the AO. It will not cause any prejudice to the explanations/defense of the assessee.

9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed of statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Court on 20th October, 2015 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/-                                                     Sd/-
(MANISH BORAD)                (RAJPAL YADAV)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER    JUDICIAL MEMBER