M/S. RICH CAM AUTO ENGINEERING(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10 (1), PUNE

Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment is filed.

We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld.CIT (Appeals) has passed an ex-parte order and the rights and liabilities of the parties herein were not M/s. RichCAM Auto Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd. adjudicated on merits. That on perusal of Para 4.1 of the CIT(Appeals)‟s order, it is seen that the assessee through its authorised representative have not appeared. However, some documents were filed by the assessee.

That further it is evident from Paras 4 to 6 of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) that he has decided the appeal on the basis of documents and material available on record i.e. Form 35 with annexures, statement of facts and grounds of appeal. The process of judicial adjudication requires Quasi-Judicial authority to adjudicate the case on merits and come out with a speaking order. In the present case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was unable to do so because of the evasive nature of the assessee. However, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and the very fact, the Income Tax Act is welfare legislation; we are of the considered view that one final opportunity should be given to the assessee to represent its case on merits. Therefore, the assessee is directed to present itself through its authorised representative before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) immediately on receipt of this order along with relevant/necessary documents to present its case on merits before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and he shall adjudicate the same by passing a speaking order while complying with the principles of natural justice. Issuance of any further notice to assessee is dispensed with. In view of the aforesaid directions, we set