SHRI BHAGWAN,REWARI vs. ITO, WARD-3, REWARI

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application has been filed. However, we find this matter could be disposed of even in the absence of the assessee. Therefore, we proceed to adjudicate this appeal after hearing the ld. Sr. DR.

On perusal of the record, I find that in this case, the ld. AO has passed the assessment order ex parte in view of non-appearance by the assessee’s representative. The ld. CIT(A) has also passed the impugned order in limine applying the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the decision of the ITAT Delhi in the case CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). I also find that the impugned order has been passed by the ld.CIT(A) ex parte qua the assessee without giving any final opportunity to the assessee and without deciding the grounds taken by the assessee on merit as per the requirement of section 250 (6) of the Act.

The ld. Sr. DR, in all fairness, admitted that the AO as well as the ld.CIT(A) have passed ex parte orders and the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine and, therefore, the Department has no serious objection if the matter is restored to the file of the AO for de novo assessment , after allowing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5. On careful consideration of the submissions of the ld. Sr. DR and on perusal of the orders of the AO and the ld.CIT(A), I am of the considered opinion that the assessee has not been provided due opportunity of being

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.