KALYANJI MISHRA,VARANASI vs. ITO, RANGE - III(1), VARANASI

By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non-prosecution, observing that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The ld. CIT(A) had issued three notices, dated 7.4.2017, 20.8.2018 and 30.8.2018, fixing the dates of hearing on 25.4.2017, 27.8.2018 and respectively and passed the order on 13.9.2018, dismissing the appeal qua the assessee. But, it is not clear from his order whether notice of hearing was ever served upon the assessee. Such service of notices has, however, been disputed by the assessee.

Heard. I find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. Moreover, he has not decided the appeal after discussing in detail, his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order. In this view of the matter, another opportunity of hearing requires to be given to 2 of 2 the assessee to represent his case fully before the ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.) and ‘Ms. Swati Pawa vs. Dy. CIT’, 175 ITD 622 (Del)] and incumbent on the ld. CIT(A) to decide an appeal on merit even in the absence of any representation before them.

In view of the above, the matter is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. Ordered accordingly.

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/11/2021.