MANJITA KAUR,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 61(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal has been decided by the ld. CIT (A) ex-parte without deciding the merits of the case when assessee failed to respond to various notices issued. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that even before the ld. AO, all the details/evidences as called for, could not be furnished and there was partial compliance . Therefore, the ld. Counsel for Page | 1

The ld. DR on the other hand did not raise any objection to the prayers of the ld. AR.

We, after hearing the submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, find that apparently the case was decided ex-parte by both the authorities below. We note that despite numerous notices, none responded and made compliances before the ld. lower authorities. The ld. CIT (A) passed an ex-parte order in limine without deciding the issues at merit, which in our opinion is in violation of Provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. We further note that there was partial compliance before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, this appeal is restored to the file of the learned JAO with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is further clarified that assessee should also not seek any adjournments unless otherwise required for valid and reasonable cause. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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