Raju V. Mahakalkar Vs ACIT (Sikkim High Court)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of the Sikkim High Court has remanded the appeals of Raju V. Mahakalkar for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, citing the assessee’s repeated failure to present evidence. The appeals arose from orders by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which were passed ex-parte due to the assessee’s non-participation.
During the initial assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) granted multiple opportunities for the assessee to provide relevant documents, but no response was received. Consequently, the AO rejected all claims. Similarly, before the first appellate authority, the assessee neither attended hearings nor submitted written responses. For instance, in the 2009-10 assessment, an addition of ₹21,30,000 was made as income from undisclosed sources because the assessee failed to provide a cash book, customer particulars, or documentary evidence for a claimed project cancellation. The CIT(A) upheld the AO’s findings due to the lack of cooperation.
Despite the assessee’s consistent non-compliance, the ITAT, upholding principles of natural justice, decided to provide one final opportunity. The ITAT emphasized that the CIT(A)’s orders were ex-parte and set them aside, remitting the cases back for fresh adjudication on merit and in accordance with law. The assessee was explicitly directed to avoid seeking adjournments without justification. This decision, while offering a final chance, highlights the judicial system’s expectation of taxpayer diligence in presenting their case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, meaning the legal points raised will be re-examined during the fresh hearing.
