ANDAMAN NICOBAR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of Civil

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee now is in appeal before the Tribunal. On the date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking for adjournment has been filed. Though notice of hearing was sent at the given address mentioned in Form No.36, however, the postal authorities returned the notice with the remarks “Not Known”. The assessee has also not taken any steps to furnish the change of address, if any.

We find in the instant case that Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without deciding the issues on merits. Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of I. T. Act mandate the CIT(A) to state the points in dispute and thereafter assign the reasons in support of his conclusion even if the assessee has not appeared before him. We, therefore, are of the view that by dismissing the appeal without considering the issues on merits, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to follow the mandate required in Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of the Act. Further it is also a well settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing should be offered to the parties and no parties should be condemned unheard. In view of these facts, we set aside the impugned order of CIT(A) dated 15.03.2019 and restore the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issues afresh after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to furnish the details called for by the authorities. In view of our decision to 4 ITA.No.5067/Del./2019 Andman Nicobar Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi. restore the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A), we are not adjudicating on merits the grounds raised by the assessee. Thus the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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