SEVANTILAL BHAICHAND SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(3)(6), MUMBAI

At the very outset, we noticed that Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order without deciding the merits of the issue in dispute, however as per the provisions of Sec. 250(6) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order on the merits of the issue in dispute, even in case of non representation on the part of the assessee as has been

Apart from the above, Ld. AR submitted that assessee is a senior citizen and had filed his return in ITR-I and assessee does not have accountants to check income tax portal on regular basis and no copy of physical notice was ever served upon the assessee. It was also submitted that after the death of assessee’s wife Smt. Kanchanben Sevantilal Shah, the assessee spends most of his time in his home town in Rajasthan and thus assessee was unaware about the service of notice and therefore could not file submissions.

On the other hand DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee we are of the view that since the assessee could not put effective representation before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A). Hence, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh by providing one more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

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