SAEEDA BEGAM,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), JAIPUR

The hearing of the matter was scheduled for today through video conferencing in view of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic situation prevailing in the country. Shri Vinod Gupta, C.A. and authorized representative appeared on behalf of the assessee and submitted that while processing the return of income filed by the assessee, an adjustment has been made by the CPC under the head “Income from House property” amounting to Rs 8,43,360/- while issuing the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act and some necessary papers are Saeeda Begam, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur required to be obtained from the assessee and in view of the same, the matter may be adjourned to some future date as convenient to the Bench.

The ld. DR is heard who has drawn our reference to the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that sufficient opportunity has been provided by the ld CIT(A), and effectively, there is no compliance to the notices before the ld CIT(A) and the matter has accordingly been decided by the ld CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO. It was further submitted that even before the Tribunal, the matter has been listed in the past, however, the authorized representative has sought adjournment and even today, when the matter was listed for hearing, request has been made for adjourning the matter. It was accordingly submitted that more than adequate opportunity has been provided by the ld. CIT(A) and by the Tribunal, no useful purpose would be served in providing further opportunity to the assessee.

We have heard the rival submissions and pursued the material available on record. We find that the matter has been listed for hearing before the ld CIT(A) on couple of occasions and has been adjourned by the ld CIT(A) on each of such occasions at the request of the authorized representative and on the last occasion, there is non-compliance as well and therefore, the matter has been decided ex-parte by the ld CIT(A) without going into merits of the case. The assessee has sought adjournment in the matter, however, we find that no useful purpose would be served in adjourning the matter as we find that there is no finding of the ld CIT(A) on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play and given that the matter has not been decided on merits, we believe that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to represent her case and to put forth her arguments and contentions as so advised before the ld CIT(A) and is at liberty to file paperbook, if any before the ld CIT(A). The matter is accordingly set-aside to Saeeda Begam, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur the file of the ld CIT(A) who shall decide the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.