Shreem Industries, Ahmedabad vs Assessee

M/s. Shreem Industries, 3, 2nd Floor, B-Jadav Chambers, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009 Appellant

Vs.

ACIT (OSD), Circle-10, Ahmedabad Respondent

PAN: AAHFS2225C

अपीलाथ क ओर से /By Appellant : Shri S. N. Divetia, A.R. ू यथ क ओर से/By Respondent : Shri Roopchand, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क तार!ख/Date of Hearing : 27.03.2015 घोषणा क तार!ख/Date of Pronouncement : 31.03.2015

ORDER

PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M:

This appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVI, Ahmedabad, dated June 17, 2011 for A.Y. 2003-04 on the following grounds:

ITA No. 2167/Ahd/11 A.Y. 03-04 [M/s. Shree m Industrie s vs. ACIT(OSD)] Page 2

"1.1 The order passed by the CIT(A)-XVI, Ahmedabad, on 17.6.2011 for AY 2003-04 confirming the penalty of Rs.1,60,000/- levied by A.O. u/s. 271(1) (c ) is wholly illegal, unlawful and in total disregard to the facts of the case.

1.2 The Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in disposing off the appeal ex party , though there was a sufficient cause for failure to appear or comply with the same.

1.3 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as in law, the Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have passed ex party order without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant .

2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and/or on facts in upholding that the appellant had committed default u/s.271(l)(c) of furnishing in accurate particulars of income in respect of foreign tour expenses of Shri Gopal Shah.

2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have held that the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of foreign tour expenses of Shri Gopal Shah and thereby confirm penalty of Rs.1,60,000."

2. The main ground of assessee is that CIT(A) has passed ex parte order and no opportunity was provided to assessee. Stand of assessee has been that assessee was not served any notice. So, he could not defend his case before CIT(A) and he submitted that there was a communication gap between assessee and its Authorized Representative. Assessee should not suffer for lapse on part of his Authorized Representative.

2.1 Taking over all view of situation, we hold that assessee should not suffer for lapse on part of Authorized Representative but at the same time, apathy towards proceedings of lower ITA No. 2167/Ahd/11 A.Y. 03-04 [M/s. Shree m Industrie s vs. ACIT(OSD)] Page 3

authorities cannot be encouraged. So, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of CIT(A) with direction to decide the same as per law and fact after providing due opportunity of hearing to assessee, subject to payment of Cost of Rs.5,000/- in the legal aid. Since, we are restoring the matter on preliminary issue, so, we are refraining ourselves to comment on the merit of issue at hand.

3. As a result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open Court on this the 31st day of March, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 31/03/2015 True Copy S.K.SINHA

आदे श क ूितिल'प अमे'षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-

1. राजःव / Revenue

2. आवेदक / Assessee

3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु0 / Concerned CIT

4. आयकर आयु0- अपील / CIT (A)

5. 'वभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad

6. गाड9 फाइल / Guard file.

By order/आदे श से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद ।