BIRJU SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6(5), PATNA

At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to my notice that the assessee did not participate during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act. Thereafter the (A.Y. 2013-2014) Birju Singh assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, inspite of service of notice, the assessee did not turn up to substantiate his case before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

I have heard the ld. D.R. and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee neither appeared before the ld. Assessing Officer nor before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee did not appear before the Tribunal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised