BRIJ BALA BARTWAL,UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal is time barred by 67 days. The assessee has filed an application citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in petition which appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 67 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.

Shri Hardeep Singh Chawla, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the notices issued by the CIT(A) were never served on the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A). He submits that the CIT(A) have been issuing notice of hearing to the 1

Per contra, Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, representing the department supported the impugned order and prayed for upholding the same.

Both sides heard, impugned order examined. The CIT(A) in ex-parte proceedings has dismissed appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution as well as on merits. The assessee has explained reason for non-appearance before the CIT(A) i.e. notices were issued by the CIT(A) to the assessee on wrong email address. In absence of service of notice, the assessee was not aware of the proceedings before the CIT(A). Considering entire facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

The CIT(A) shall serve notice(s) to the assessee on the email address available in Form No. 35 i.e. brij.bartwal@gmail.com.

The assessee upon service of notice shall respond to the same, without fail.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.