SMT. RUPA SACHIN SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABDA

The captioned appeal have been filed at the instance of the different Assessee against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, -2419/AHD/2018 Asstt. Year 2015-16 2 Ahmedabad, of even dated 25/09/2018 (in short “Ld.CIT(A)”) arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2015-2016.

When the matter was called for hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 11-9-2018 before the learned CIT (A). But he (the counsel) could not attend the same as he met with an accident dated 3 September 2018, couple of days before the scheduled date of hearing before the learned CIT (A). As such the date of hearing got missed from his mind and he could not apply for the adjournment on the date of hearing. In the meantime the learned CIT (A) passed the ex parte order qua the assessee vide dated 25-9-2018.

In view of the above, the learned counsel before us made a statement across the bar that owing to the personal difficulty as discussed above, he could not appear before the learned CIT (A) on the date of hearing and there was no fault of the assessee for the non-appearance. Accordingly the learned AR before us pleaded to restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT (A) for the fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.

On the contrary, the learned DR, considering the reasons for non-appearance before the learned CIT (A), did not raise any objection if the matter is set aside to the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.

Heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the preceding discussion we note that the learned counsel for the assessee could not appear before the learned CIT (A) on the scheduled date of hearing due to unavoidable circumstances as discussed above. As such the learned CIT (A) has passed the order without hearing the contentions of the assessee as there was no appearance from the side of the assessee on the date of hearing. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand as discussed above, we are inclined to -2419/AHD/2018 Asstt. Year 2015-16 3 give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee before the learned CIT (A). Accordingly we set aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT-(A) for de novo adjudication of the present appeal after giving due opportunity to the assessee.

At the outset we note that the facts of the case on hand are identical to the facts of the case as discussed in ITA 2419/AHD/2018 in the case of Sachin Mahasukhlal which has been restored to the file of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law by us vide para No.5 of this order. Respectfully following the same, we restore this appeal also to the file of the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.

In the combined results, for the statistical purposes, both the appeals are allowed.