SEJAL INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-13(2)(1), MUMBAI

From the impugned order it appears that the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed in limine for want of limitation, by not condoning the delay of 186 days by the Ld. Commissioner. Therefore, the Assessee being aggrieved, preferred the instant appeal and at the outset has submitted that though the Ld. Commissioner has taken into consideration the reason for delay as explained by the Assessee in para No.15 of Form No.35, however, admittedly no notice for the opportunity of being heard has been given to the Assessee. Therefore, the Assessee remained unrepresented.

Though the Ld. D.R. supported the order of the Ld. Commissioner, however, did not refute the aforesaid factual aspect.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality as it is the mandate of law that before deciding any statutory appeal it is the bounden duty of the appellate authority to afford opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. Thus, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Hence, the instant case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner accordingly.