SAHIL MANGLA, KAITHAL, HARYANA,KAITHAL, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 16, DELHI, DELHI

That the Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the defects, if any, in the appeal were curable in nature and ought to have been allowed to be rectified instead of dismissing the appeal summarily.

That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, without appreciating that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and deserved to be condoned in the interest of justice.

That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in relying upon alleged deficiency notices issued through the ITBA Portal without ensuring proper and effective service upon the appellant and without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

That the action of the Learned CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the facts and submissions of the appellant is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.

That the order passed u/s 250 by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law and liable to be quashed and that the penalty levied under section 270A deserves to be deleted.

That the appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend, or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at any time before or during the course of hearing, as may be considered necessary in the interest of justice.

The ld. DR has pointed out that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on technical grounds by treating the appeal filed in Form No. 35 as

In our considered view, keeping in view of the natural justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the case after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee as required under law. The assessee is also directed to file all the relevant documents and details before the ld. CIT(A) in time.

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