SHRI ABDUL AHAD DAR,SRINAGR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 (5), BARAMULA

There has been a delay of 58 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal which has explained to be a medical ground that the assessee has suffered chronic diabetes during that period. Although, the ld. DR has objection to the condonation of delay, however considering the short period delay in filing the appeal, we hereby condoned the delay and allow the appeal to be heard on merits.

At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the lower authorities has passed the order ex-parte qua the assessee without service of notice, hence, she requested that the matter may be remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the issues fresh after considering the submission of the assessee on the grounds of appeal pertaining to deposits in the bank account and application of a net profit rate or gross rate etc.

The ld. DR stand by the impugned order. However, he failed to file any evidence in rebuttal/ controvert the facts of service of the notice upon the assessee.

From the record, it is evident that the assessment order and the impugned order are passed ex-parte qua the appellant assessee. The Abdul Ahad Dar v. ITO factum of issue of notices have been mentioned, however the factum of service of notice on the assessee is not mentioned and in the absence of service of notice, how the assessee can make any compliance to the queries raised by the ld. CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings.

In view of the matter, we consider it deem fit to remand back to the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh by passing a speaking order after considering the written submission of the assessee by granting adequate opportunity of being heard to him in view of principles of natural justice. No doubt the assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.