VIJENDRA SURENDRA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

We have heard Sh. Mayank Patawari, learned counsel appearing for the assessee and Ms. Indu Sen, learned Departmental Representative.

The primary grievance of the assesse is against ex-parte disposal of its appeal, that too, in limine by learned Commissioner (Appeals). On perusal of impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is observed, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine, alleging that the assessee had not filed any documents such as Form 35, assessment order, grounds of appeal, demand notice etc. The aforesaid finding of learned Commissioner (Appeals) is contradictory considering the fact that in the opening paragraph of the impugned order, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the information given by the assessee in From no. 35 regarding the date of service of demand notice and payment of admitted tax is taken to be correct.

Thus, in our view, while deciding the appeal learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not followed the principles of rules of Natural Justice. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter back to him for de novo adjudication. In case, there is any defect in the appeal filed by the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) must call upon the assessee to remove the defect and thereafter decide the appeal on merits after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.