MALAV RAJEN SHAH,MUMBAI vs. MUM CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 09.12.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2018-19.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called, however an application for seeking adjournment has been placed on record. From the case records, we noticed that the assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A) therefore we dismiss the application for seeking adjournment. Contra, Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments. Therefore, we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte.

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.

Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

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