RUPESH MITTAL HUF,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 48(4), DELHI

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s/Revenue’s condonation averments, delay of 282 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC in its detailed discussion has proceeded ex- parte against the assessee thereby affirming the Assessing Officer’s action making the corresponding disallowances/additions herein.

The Revenue during the course of hearing vehemently argues in support of CIT(A)’s finding that the assessee had not filed any explanation or evidence supporting it’s case.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands and is of the considered view that since the CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte against the assessee, possibility of some communication gaps between the taxpayer, auditor and the arguing counsel in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out.

Faced with this situation, in the larger interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A) for her afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the cases at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.