M/S AMBEY CONSTRUTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA

In the present case the income of the assessee was assessed by the assessing officer to the tune of rupees 42, 22, 943 /-as the returned income (-) Rs 784,00,879/-. While computing the income of the assessee, the assessing officer has filed by the assessee and had also granted the opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner appeal. The Commissioner appeal had issued the notice for appeal in on first may 2018, 14/11/2018 and 24 January 2019. On all the 3 of the assessee has not appeared before the Commissioner appeal and assess the Commissioner appeal was concerned to decide the application based on the material available on record and had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by proceeding ex parte and the assessee.

Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner appeal assessee is before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove.

At the outset it was submitted by the assessee that the appellant preferred by the assessee delayed for a period of 272 days and for that purposes the assessee had submitted the expression forming part of the record and it was submitted that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned.

The ld. DR, has not raised objection for condoning the delay.

Considering the reasoning given in the application for condonation of delay and considering the nature of order passed by the Commissioner appeals, we are of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal is required to be condoned and we condone the said.

On the ld. AR had submitted that for the reasons the appellant has not appeared before the Commissioner appeal on the occasion of the necessary instructions were given by the assessee to the Counsel for pursuing the appeal. Nonetheless it was submitted that the CIT appeal at the fact that the appeal on the basis of ex parte and has not decided the appeal on merit. It was submitted that even if the assessee had not appear before the CIT appeal it is the duty of the CIT to decide the appeal on merits instead of dismissing on technical grounds.

The above said proposition was confronted to the ld. Dr, she had submitted opportunities were granted to the assessee before the learned CIT Appeal. It was submitted that the assessee is not entitled to 2nd inning before the CIT A. Further, the learned DR had fairly submitted that, that the matter may kindly be remanded back to the file of the Commissioner Appeal for a fresh adjudication of appeal. 9. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record. As laid down by the honorable Supreme Court in Catena of judgement that the purpose of tax administration is to collect just and fair tax from the citizen and it should not be an endeavor of the revenue authority to take benefit of ignorance of the citizen or absence of appellant in the proceedings. 10. In our considered opinion the interest of justice, requires that the matters be sent back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merit. We expect the learned CIT(A) to decide the matter expeditiously after issuing the sufficient notice to the assessee and he shall grant the assessee sufficient opportunity to produce the evidence/document as may be advised. 11. The assessee is also directed to present on each and every date fixed by the AO and shall not take undue date/adjournment in the matter. It is expected that the appeal shall be decided by the CIT(A) preferably within a period of 6 months from the receipt of this order. 12. Needless to say that we have not adjudicated and decided all the grounds raised before us and have only remanded back the matter to the file of the AO for deciding the assessment denovo, the learned AO shall decide the matter without

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.