SATBIR SINGH,V-KIRDHAN, FATEHABAD vs. ITO WARD-1, FATEHABAD, FATEHABAD

On merits, the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is substantially an ex parte order. Though certain notices were issued during the appellate proceedings, the assessee could not effectively represent the matter and, consequently, no adequate opportunity was available to place the relevant documentary evidence and explanations on record. It was argued that the first appellate authority, being a quasi-judicial authority, is duty-bound to decide the appeal after granting effective and meaningful opportunity of hearing. It was accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted that the assessee remained

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, including the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A.). At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A.) as well as before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed affidavits explaining the reasons for the delay. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and being satisfied that the delay was occasioned by sufficient cause, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of substantial justice, to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeals stands condoned.

On merits, it is an admitted position that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A.) has been passed ex parte. Although notices were issued during the appellate proceedings, the appeal ultimately

At the same time, we also cannot lose sight of the fact that the assessee did not diligently prosecute the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A.), which resulted in the passing of the impugned ex parte order. Such conduct deserves to be discouraged. Therefore, while we are inclined to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A.) in the interest of justice, the same deserves to be subject to appropriate conditions. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A.) and restore the matter to his file for deciding the appeal de novo in accordance with law after affording adequate and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after considering such evidences and submissions as may be placed on record.

However, this restoration shall be subject to the condition that the assessee shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) in each appeal, with the Poor Patient Relief Fund,

It is made clear that in the event the assessee fails to furnish the proof of such deposit before the Ld. CIT(A.) within two months from the date of this order, the benefit of this remand order shall automatically stand withdrawn and the present order shall become ineffective and stand nullified, and the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A.) shall automatically stand restored without requiring any further orders from this Tribunal. Subject to the above condition, the Ld. CIT(A.) shall adjudicate the appeals afresh on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice and following the procedure prescribed under the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Accordingly, the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.