IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, I MUMBAI Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member ITA Nos.7680 to 7682 & 7684/Mum/2014 Assessment Years: 2005-06 to 2007-08 & 2009-10 Shri Jatin V. Savla, DCIT, 402, Ravika Apartment, Central Circle-12, 02nd Dadiseth X Lane, M.K. Road, Babulnath, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400007 (Assessee) (Revenue) PAN. No.AADPS6123M Assessee by None Revenue by Shri B.C.S. Naik CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 17/10/2016 Date of Order: 17/10/2016 2 ITA No.7680 to 7682 & 7684/Mum/2014 Jatin V. Savla O R D E R Per Joginder Singh(Judicial Member) This bunch of four appeals, for Assessment year 2005- 06 to 2007-08 & 2009-10, is by assessee, aggrieved by ex-parte impugned orders, all dated 30/09/2014 of ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, on grounds as stated in respective appeal. 2. During hearing, none was present for assessee in spite of issuance of registered AD notices for 21/06/2016, 12/07/2016, 10/08/2016, 23/08/2016 and 17/10/2016. assessee neither presented himself nor moved any adjournment petition. It seems that assessee has nothing to say. It is also noted that notices were sent at address provided by assessee in column no. 10 (Form No.36) of appeal filed by assessee. Under circumstances, we have no option but to proceed ex- parte, qua assessee, and tend to dispose of these appeals on basis of material available on record. ld. CIT-DR, Shri B.C. S. Naik, defended order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). 2.1. We have considered submissions of ld. DR and perused material available on record. facts, in brief, are that search and seizure action was carried out in case of Reliable Paper (I) Pvt. Ltd., u/s 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter Act), and group concerns 3 ITA No.7680 to 7682 & 7684/Mum/2014 Jatin V. Savla between 23/02/2010 and 20/04/2010, wherein, certain incriminating documents relating to assessee were found. Simultaneously action u/s 132 of Act was carried out on premises of assessee at 402, Revika Apartment, 2nd Dadisheth Cross Lane, Babulnath, Mumbai- 400007. Subsequently, notice u/s 153A of Act dated 31/01/2011 was served upon assessee. assessee did not file return, within prescribed limit, therefore, penalty u/s 271F was levied vide order dated 08/02/2013. Further notice u/s 142(1) was issued, asking assessee, to submit return. In view of non-compliance penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of Act was initiated. Summon u/s 131 of Act was issued, to which also, there was non- compliance. Thereafter, one more reminder u/s 142(1) dated 19/02/2013 was served upon assessee. There was no compliance on part of assessee. Thereafter, in response to notice, assessee filed return of income on 25/02/2013, declaring total income of Rs.3,37,400/- for Assessment year 2005-06. Thereafter notice u/s 143(2) dated 25/02/2013 was served upon assessee. reminder dated 25/02/2013 along with questionnaire was served upon assessee for 04/03/2013. In response to notices, assessee filed letter in tappal on 25/02/2013 partial details were filed by further mentioning that assessee has closed his business w.e.f 01/04/2008, therefore, no returns were filed for Assessment year 2009-10 to 2012-13. It was also mentioned that for Assessment year 4 ITA No.7680 to 7682 & 7684/Mum/2014 Jatin V. Savla 2008-09, return could not be filed as books for said period are lying with Sales Tax Authorities. Another letter dated 04/03/2013 was filed by assessee. ld. Assessing Officer was of view that since assessee did not furnish necessary details with supporting documents, therefore, assessment was framed u/s 144 of Act. 2.2. matters were carried in appeal before Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). It is noticed that before Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), either AR of assessee sought adjournment or assessee himself. Finally, appeals were decided ex-parte. 2.3. Before this Tribunal also, as mentioned earlier, there is no compliance on part of assessee. Form foregoing discussion, it is evident that assessee is habitual for non-appearance and is not cooperating for disposal of appeals. At same time, these appeals cannot be kept pending for indefinite period. Still, we are of view, that no persons should be condemned unheard. Though assessee, under facts narrate hereinabove, does not deserves leniency, still, we are constrained to take lenient view and remand all these appeals to file of ld. Assessing Officer to adjudicate appeals afresh. assessee is also directed to approach office of ld. Assessing Officer within one month from receipt of this 5 ITA No.7680 to 7682 & 7684/Mum/2014 Jatin V. Savla order. It is made clear that if assessee still does not appear, ld. Assessing Officer is at liberty to decide these appeals on basis of material available before him. Thus, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only. Finally, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. This order was pronounced in open court in presence of ld. DR at conclusion of hearing on 17/10/2016. Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Joginder Singh) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 17/10/2016 P.S/. . . Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant (Respective assessee) 2. Respondent. 3. CIT, Mumbai. 4. CIT(A)- , Mumbai, 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Jatin V. Savla v. DCIT, Central Circle-12