BHARATHI CHAJJED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2), BANGALORE

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 27.09.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.

At the very outset, I notice that the appeal of the assessee before the CIT(A) has been decided ex-parte. The reason for deciding the appeal ex-parte was that assessee had sought adjournment for filing written submissions to two notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A) (notices issued on 30.12.2020 and 16.09.2023). The learned AR submitted that assessee had sought for adjournment for both the notices. However, the CIT(A) did not heed to the request of the assessee and passed ex-parte order. It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to represent her case before the CIT(A).

The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(A) had issued two notices directing the assessee to file written submissions. One of the notices was issued on 30.12.2020 and assessee had sought for adjournment. Thereafter, after a lapse of almost three years, the Office of the CIT(A) had issued the second notice on 16.09.2023 fixing the case for hearing on 22.09.2023. In response to the notice issued on 16.09.2023, assessee had sought for adjournment. Copies of the adjournment applications are placed on record. I am of the view that in the interest of justice and equity, assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent her case and accordingly the issues are restored to the files of the CIT(A). The assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.