PREETI AGARWAL, 3/285, VIDYADHAR NAGAR JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-4(2), JAIPUR, WARD-4(2), JAIPUR

The hearing of the matter was scheduled for today through video conferencing in view of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic situation in the country. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any adjournment application filed. The ld. DR is heard who has drawn our reference to the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that as many as 06 opportunities have been provided by the ld CIT(A), however, there is totally no compliance to the notices issued by the ld CIT(A) and the matter has accordingly been decided by the ld CIT(A) confirming the disallowances made by the AO. It was accordingly submitted that more than adequate Preeti Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 4(2), Jaipur opportunity has been provided by the ld. CIT(A), no useful purpose would be served in providing further opportunity to the assessee. On merits, the ld DR supported the findings of the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions and purused the material available on record. We find that the Assessing officer has passed the impugned order dated 19.12.2016 u/s 143(3) whereby commission expenses of Rs 23,81,200/- have been disallowed by the Assessing officer and which has been confirmed by the ld CIT(A). No doubt, the matter has been listed for hearing before the ld CIT(A) on couple of occasions and has been adjourned from time to time and finally, the matter has been decided ex-parte qua the assessee by the ld CIT(A). However, given that the matter has not been decided on merits, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. The matter is accordingly set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A) who shall decide the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.