BIJAL MALAV SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS

During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that both these appeals have been decided ex-parte by the Ld.CIT(A). In this regard, our reference was drawn to the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) wherein he has stated that three notices have been issued which have remain un-complied with. In this regard, it was submitted by the Ld.AR that these three notices have been issued at a very short interval and that too on the IT portal and given the holiday period and the paucity of time and the fact that the assessee did not receive those notices, the assessee was prevented from complying to the said notices. It was accordingly submitted that the assessee be allowed necessary opportunity and the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the same afresh.

Per contra, the Ld. DR is heard, who has relied on the orders passed by the AO as well as by the Ld.CIT(A).

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the Ld. CIT(A) issued all the notices at a very short interval and that too on the IT portal and given the holiday period and the paucity of time, the assessee couldn‟t respond to these notices. It is also a fact that in both these appeals, the Ld.CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order, without going to the merits of the case. In view of the above, we deemed it appropriate that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to represent his case on merits before the Ld.CIT(A). Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order(s) and restore both the appeals to the file(s) of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication afresh with a direction to the assessee to attend to the proceedings and furnish all the details/submissions as so advised.