KAILASH JALAN,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, DIBRUGARH, DIBRUGARH

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition has been made by the ld. AO on the basis of retracted statement which is wrong and has no basis as the retracted statement does not constitute a valid piece of evidences unless corroboration was done by the ld. AO. The ld. AR submitted that before the ld. CIT (A) the proceedings culminated ex-parte when the assessee failed to make any compliance on the various opportunities

The ld. DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the authorities below.

We, after hearing the submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, find that apparently the case was decided ex-parte by the ld. CIT (A). We note that despite numerous notices, none responded and made compliance before the ld. CIT (A) and the ld. CIT (A) passed an ex-parte order in limine without deciding the issues at merit, which in our opinion is in violation of Provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, this appeal is restored to the file of the learned CIT (A) with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is further clarified that assessee should also not seek any adjournments unless otherwise required for valid and reasonable cause. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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