TEJINDER SINGH,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(4), FARIDABAD

At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) has decided the issues exparte. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the ld. counsel for the assessee met with an accident and was injured and hence was unable to file reply before the ld. CIT(A) within due time. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deciding the issues exparte.

Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the issues without appreciation of facts as is statutorily required u/s 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. We are of the considered view that the assessee has reasonable cause for not participating before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) should have given effective hearing so as to adhere to the principles of natural justice.

In view of the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the considered view that the matter be Page 2 of 4 restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues afresh after allowing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.