PUNEET SINGAL,HISAR vs. ITO, WARD-5, HISAR

We have heard Shri Lalit Mohan, learned authorized representative of the assessee and Ms. Indu Sen, learned Departmental Representative.

Basic grievance of the assessee is against ex parte disposal of his appeal by the first appellate authority.

Briefly, the facts are, assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed his return of income on 14.10.2016, declaring total income of Rs.9,93,160. Assessment in case of assessee was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2018. While completing the assessment, Assessing Officer added back an amount of Rs.41,00,394 representing deduction of interest expenditure claimed under Section 57(iii) of the Act.

Having considered rival submissions, perused material available on record, we find, learned Commissioner (Appeals) while proceeding ex parte against assessee has dismissed the appeal in limine for non- prosecution. As per the mandate of Section 250 of the Act, learned first appellate authority has to decide the appeal on merits, though, there is no fetters on learned Commissioner (Appeals) to proceed ex parte in case of failure on the part of the appellant to represent his case, however, learned Commissioner (Appeals) is to decide the appeal on merits. That is not the case in the facts of the present appeal.

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