GOVINDAN SETHURAMAN MADHU HARI KRISHNA REDDY,CHENNAI vs. THE ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD-19(5), CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 16.03.2023 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18.

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18.

None appeared for the assessee. We have heard the ld. Sr. DR, AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT, and perused relevant material available on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) disposed off appeal filed by the assessee exparte for non- :-3-: ITA. No: 616/Chny/2023 prosecution, which is evident from Para 4 of CIT(A) order, where the ld. CIT(A) gave number of opportunities to the assessee on various dates, but the assessee neither appeared nor sought any adjournment. It is a well settled principle of law by the decisions of various courts and tribunals that, when the appellant is not seriously prosecuting their appeal, then the appellate authorities are left with no option but to dispose off appeal filed by the appellant. However, said appeal should be disposed off on merits on the basis of material available on record. In the present case, although the CIT(A) disposed off appeal filed by the assessee exparte, but said appeal has been disposed off on technical ground for non-appearance. Therefore, we are of the considered view, that the issue needs to go back to the file of the CIT(A) to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) and direct the CIT(A) to reconsider the issue after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall appear before the CIT(A) and furnish necessary details without seeking any adjournment, unless otherwise warrants.