KUMAR SHANKAR KARAJAGI,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, SOLAPUR

Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any application was moved for adjournment.

The present appeal has been filed after delay of 363 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeal late along with Memo of appeal. The assessee pointed out that he was Chairman of Co-operative Society and because of certain disputes, complaint was filed by the members of Co-operative Society and the assessee was under detention and judicial custody. Hence, the delay in filing the present appeal after a period of 363 days. In the entirety of the said facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 363 days in filing the appeal late before the Tribunal and proceed to decide the issue after hearing the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue.

On perusal of order of the CIT(A), we find that appeal was fixed before him on two dates of hearing and thereafter as the assessee failed to appear or failed to file an application for adjournment, the order of Assessing Officer was upheld. The CIT(A) notes that the assessee has failed to furnish any written submissions. The principles of natural justice demand that reasonable opportunity of hearing be provided to the assessee for putting forward its arguments. However, in the present set of facts, the appeal has been decided ex-parte the assessee without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view thereof, we restore the issue back to the file of CIT(A), who shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the issue on merits. The assessee is also directed to appear before the CIT(A)

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