PANDURANGAM CHEDUDUPU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), HYDERABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sri Pandurangam Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chedudupu, Ward-4(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AFUPC 6008 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Smt. Sandhya Revenue by: Sri Nilanjan Dey, DR Date of hearing: 03/02/2020 Date of pronouncement: 21/02/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad in appeal No.0219/17-18/ITO, Ward-4(4)/CIT(A)- 1/Hyd/2018-19, dated 16/01/2019 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16.

“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appal without providing further opportunity.

and ought to have decided the issue on merits.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering each group of appeal raised before him on facts and ought to have decided the additions made by the A.O.

5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of haring.”

3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order without providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld CIT (A) in order to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to pursue the appeal. Ld. DR, on the other hand, vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR and argued by stating that several opportunities had been provided to the assessee however, on the given dates of hearing, neither the assessee nor his Representative appeared before the Ld. CIT (A). It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) had no other option but to pass ex-parte order based on the materials available on record. Hence, it was pleaded that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference and the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed.

However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) on the dates of hearing. Therefore, the Ld. CIT (A) was left with no other option except to adjudicate the appeal ex-parte. In this situation, we do not find much strength in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. However, considering the prayer of the Ld. AR, and in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) in order to consider the appeal afresh on merits by providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. At the same breath, we also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld. CIT (A) in the proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT (A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials on the record. It is ordered accordingly.

Pronounced in the open Court on 21st February, 2020.