SHRI ABDUL RASHEED QURESHI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-1, 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. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, an adjournment application was received by the Registry through email from Shri Hanif Khan, C.A. and authorised representative of the assessee stating that due to some unavoidable circumstances, it is not possible to appear today and the matter may be adjourned. Shri Abdul Rasheed Qureshi, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur 3. 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 by the ld CIT(A), however, every time, the matter was listed for hearing, adjournment application was filed by the authorized representative 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 from time to time 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 the Tribunal, 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 pursued the material available on record. In the adjournment application, no specific reason has been specified which has prevented the authorized representative from appearance before the Bench. Given that the matter has been listed for hearing on earlier occasions and then, adjourned from time to time, we find that no useful purpose would be served in granting further adjournment in the matter and the adjournment application is hereby rejected.

We find that the Assessing officer has passed the impugned order dated 12.12.2017 whereby books of accounts have been rejected and trading addition of Rs 4,05,783/- has been made which has been confirmed by the ld CIT(A). Further, 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 2 Shri Abdul Rasheed Qureshi, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur 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 merits, we believe that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to represent his case and to put forth his arguments and contentions as so advised. 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.