ATHENA CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

From the records, I noticed that assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A) and in this regard Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not provided proper and sufficient opportunity of hearing by Ld. CIT(A) and moreover the assessee had also filed documents by way of additional

After hearing gone through the submissions of both the parties and documents placed on record, I found from the order of Ld. CIT(A) that there is no mention regarding providing of opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee, moreover in Form No. 35 in column No. 12 there is specific mention of moving application for leading additional evidence under Rule 46A and in this regard documents were also placed before Ld. CIT(A) as per para 12.1 of Form – 35. But from the entire order of Ld. CIT(A) there is no mention of leading additional evidence by the assessee which goes to show that Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with any such application.

Be that as it may considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case and also keeping in view the fact that the assessee had not provided opportunity of personal hearing and documentary evidences placed on record by the assessee were also not dealt with by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore I am of the view that the present matter needs to be restore back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh by taking into consideration of documents relied upon by the assessee. Needless to say after providing opportunity of hearing 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.