Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HONBLE
O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29/11/2019 impugned herein passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 [for short, “ld. Commissioner”], Visakhapatnam u/sec. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") for the A.Y. 2011-12.
In this case, during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. Commissioner, none appeared on behalf of the appellant/Assessee in spite of affording sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, ld. Commissioner decided the appeal as ex-parte by concluding as under:-
“5.2 ......During the course of appellate proceedings, none appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of affording sufficient opportunity of being. Since, the appellant has not produced any substantial evidence in support of her claim either before the AO or during the course of appeal proceedings. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere into the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition of Rs. 14,70,858/- towards the income under the head of Long Term Capital Gain u/sec. 143(3) of the Act addition and the same is hereby upheld. Therefore, the appeal made by the appellant on this ground is hereby dismissed.”
Though it appears from the impugned order wherein it is stated that none appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of affording sufficient opportunity of being heard, but it is not clear as to how many opportunities and by which mode has been given to the Assessee. It a relevant fact that the ld. Commissioner did not pass the order on merits by giving independent finding, but just upheld the order. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, for the ends of justice, it appropriate be appropriate to set aside the impugned order herein and remit the case back to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on merits, suffice to say while affording reasonable opportunity(s) of being heard to the Assessee. Hence, ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose.
Order Pronounced in open Court on this 24th day of June, 2021.