RAJVANTI DEVI,SONIPAT vs. ITO WARD -5, SONIPAT

At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee but an adjournment application was moved stating that the assessee is in not the position to contact her Authorized Representative. In view of the patent procedural deficiency noted in the impugned order as it could not stand in the eyes of law the adjournment application was rejected. The appeal was heard ex-parte qua the assessee appellant on merits after hearing the Ld. Sr. DR and it was directed that the issue is being restored back to the CIT(A) for a fresh consideration.

A perusal of the order shows that the assessee before the CIT(A) remained unrepresented. It is seen that the additions made in the order passed u/s 147/144 were assailed and ultimately in view of the fact that the assessee remained unrepresented, the appeal was dismissed referring to the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tukoji Rao Holkar vs. CWT [1997] 233 ITR 480 Holakar and CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and CIT vs. Multiplan (India)

A perusal of the order shows that the Ld. CIT(A) in page 2 of the impugned order notes that “the case was again re-fixed for 13.06.2019 (Final opportunity). However, it is seen that the order was passed on 14.03.2019”. Thus, patently the order was passed without giving due notice to the assessee; and without hearing the assessee before the date of hearing, itself. Such an order cannot be upheld. The impugned order accordingly, open to the “charge” of bias, prejudice and arbitrariness is set aside and the issues are restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The assessee, in its own interests, is directed to ensure full and proper participation before the First Appellate Authority and not abuse the trust reposed. Said order was pronounced at the time of virtual hearing itself in the presence of the parties Webex.

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