REED ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-21(2), NEW DELHI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issue of notice. Since the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case, this appeal was taken up for adjudication after hearing the ld. DR.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income on 31st October, 2005 declaring total income of Rs.65,812/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s 147/144 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.14,25,937/-. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 and levied penalty of Rs.4,97,705/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, due to persistent non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by him, the ld.CIT(A) in his ex parte order, sustained the penalty levied by the AO.

Aggrieved with such order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before me.

I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to persistent non-compliance to the statutory notices, the ld.CIT(A) was constrained to pass the ex parte order sustaining the penalty levied by the AO. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and noting that the assessee in its grounds of appeal has mentioned that due opportunity of hearing was not provided to the assessee, I, in the interest of justice, deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) and substantiate its case, failing which, the ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and 2 direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The decision was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself, i.e., on 14.07.2021.