ITAT: Once notice u/s 153(3) is issued to the assessee then it is incumbent upon the assessee to file the return of income

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member
Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member

 ITA No. 6345/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2005-06
 ITA No. 6346/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07
 ITA No. 6347/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2007-08
 ITA No. 6348/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2008-09
 ITA No. 6349/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10

Abhishek Tiwari,
6, Southern Avenue, Maharani
Bagh, New Delhi-110065
(APPELLANTT 

Vs 

DCIT,
Central Circle-13,
New Delhi
(RESPONDENT)
PAN No. ADCPT9874A

 Assessee by : None
 Revenue by : Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR

Date of Hearing: 12.07.2021 
Date of Pronouncement: 12 .07.2021
 
ORDER

Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member:
 
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of ld. CIT (A)-35, New Delhi dated 03.02.2017.

2. Since, the issues involved in all these appeals are common which were heard together .

3. In ITA No. 6345/Del/2017 , following grounds have been raised by the assessee:

“That an appeal against the impugned order of the learned A.O . was filed be fore C1T (Appeals) on 26th April 2013 but CIT (Appeals) has passed an Ex-Parte order by con firming the demand of Ld. A.O. on 02.02.2017 without taking into consideration the reasons due to which the appellant could not provide the necessary documents and evidence and could not attend the hearings be fore the CIT (Appeals). Some of the reasons are provided below:-

(a) That Mr . Abhieshek Tewari, Appellant was himself suf fering from various illnesses and had also been fractured in body o f right scapula and his elder brother Mr. Anand Tiwari of the suf fering from a chronic liver disease for the past 5-6 years. On account of his severe illness he has been admitted/treated in various hospitals in India as well as abroad on innumerable occasions and has been bedridden for most o f the time during these years.

(b) That Mr. Abhieshek Tewari, appellant was himself su ffering from various illnesses and had also beenincarcerated during the relevant time . Due to financial crisis, the company had started making de faults inpaying installments to various banks and also in fulfilling other financial obligation. Consequently, thebanks had filed false & frivolous complaints with the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B .I.). The C.B.I. officials had started making inquiries not only from the directors, but also from the family/staf f members etc. The C .B.I. of ficials had also started calling not only the directors, but also the staf f members, to their office . The C .B.I. officials had started making visits to the of fice of the company. Mr. P.K. Tiwari was incarcerated in connection with the CBI cases from July, 2012 to October, 2012 and from September 2014 to March 2015. The Appellant Company was going through severe financial crunch during all these years, due to which most of the company staf f le ft the company as their salaries could not be paid. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Tiwari could not devote time to pursue the appeals on account o f the aforementioned reasons. On account o f his advance age , frequent incarceration and the extra ordinary financial crises and other adverse conditions, Mr. P.K. Tiwari was under acute depression and could not therefore , focus on the matter .

(c) That the authorized representative, representing the appellant before the respondent extracted huge money from the appellant but did not properly putforward the case before the respondent. They should at least have represented the difficulties being faced by the appellant and ought to have defended theappellant to the best of their capacity on the basis of records which were within their possession and knowledge. But most un fortunately they failed to perform their pro fessional duty, resulting in passing of the impugned order.

(d) That the respondent ought to have considered the aforementioned bona fide reasons and extra ordinary circumstances and should have granted further time to the appellant to satisfy the respondent on the aspect that the demand raised by the Ld. A.O . was illegal and unwarranted. The ex-parte order passed by the respondent is unwarranted and has resulted in extreme prejudice to the appellant.

To know more in details find the attachment file