RAMESH D JAIN HUF,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

After having heard the counsels for both the parties and also keeping in view the facts mentioned by Ld. AR with regard to delay and after going through the case file and considering the submissions of the assessee and hearing the parties and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC) wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of none deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. Therefore, keeping in view the above principles and the facts of the case we condoned the delay in filing the present appeal. Now the appeal is admitted to be heard on merits.

At the very outset, we noticed that Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order as the assessee had not complied with any of the notices and has not submitted any 3 Ramesh D Jain, Mumbai details/documents/evidences in support of his grounds of appeal.

Whereas Ld. AR reiterated the same arguments and relied upon the contents of the application for seeking condonation of delay for his reasons of non appearance before Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that because of ignorance assessee could not appear before Ld. CIT(A) and relied upon one local chartered accountant who had helped him in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and assured that the additions would be deleted in appeal

After having heard both the parties and after perusal of material placed on record as well as orders passed by the revenue authorities and without going into the merits of the allegations and counter allegations, the bench is of the view that the ends of justice would be met only if the issues between the parties are decided on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing.

Be that as it may, keeping in view the above preposition in mind, we are inclined to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to prove his case before the revenue authorities. Therefore, the present appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication by providing opportunity of hearing the parties. The 4 Ramesh D Jain, Mumbai assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and 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 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 stands allowed for statistical purposes.

उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst.