VASANTHAN SATISH KUMAR,SIVAKASI vs. ITO, WARD-4, VIRUDHUNAGAR

At the outset, we note that this appeal was filed with a delay of 817 days. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the said delay. On perusal of the said affidavit and upon hearing both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the said delay of 817 days is condoned subject to payment of cost of ₹50,000/- in favour of the Legal

On merits, the Ld. AR, Mr. J. Saravanan, Advocate, submits that the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO ex-parte qua the assessee and sought one more opportunity in the interest of justice, and prayed to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for his fresh consideration.

The Ld. DR Mr. Pelli Prem Kumar, Sr. AR drew our attention to page No.3 of the impugned order and submits that the Ld. CIT(A) has given ample opportunity to the assessee, but however, no representation whatsoever was made before the Ld. CIT(A), and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

Having heard both the parties, we note that the AO made three additions and admittedly there was no proper representation before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR has undertaken that the assessee will represent before the Ld. CIT(A) without fail, and taking into consideration the undertaking of the Ld. AR, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for his fresh consideration. The assessee shall place on record the proof of payment of cost before the Ld. CIT(A), and the Ld. CIT(A) shall satisfy himself with such proof of payment of cost and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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