SHRI DEEPAK BANSAL,MADANGANJ -KISHANGARH vs. ITO, WARD-2, KISHANGARH

The hearing of the matter was scheduled through Video Conferencing in view of ongoing COVID-19 pandemic situation in the country. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was received. The ld. DR is heard who has drawn our reference to the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that ample opportunity has been provided to the assessee. However, there is no affective compliance to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) and the matter has accordingly been decided by the ld CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 2 Sh. Deepak Bansal, Kishangarh Vs. ITO, Kishangarh 3. The ld. DR is heard and pursued the material available on record. We find that the matter has been listed for hearing before the ld. CIT(A) on couple occasions and has been adjourned from time to time and thereafter, the matter has been decided ex parte by the ld. CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice and fair play and given that the matter has not been decided on merit, we believe that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to represent his case before the ld. CIT(A). The matter is accordingly set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A) who shall decide the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.