VAISHNO PRASAD RAJESH,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 2(5), GHAZIABAD

In the instant appeal, the assessee has challenged the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) which is found to be barred by time for 224 days as it appears from page 2 of the order. It is the case of the assessee that the assessment order was served at an address which is not proper as the assessee does not reside there; as per Rule 27 of the IT Rules the assessee’s address of D-51, Ground Floor, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi-110 049 ought to have been considered for service of order passed by the Ld. AO. It has further been contended by the Ld. AR that the assessee has neither been served with the notice under Section 148 of the Act and, therefore, the entire proceedings is violative of statutory provisions. The crux of the statement is, therefore, is that since the AO’s order was not served to the assessee, the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) as found by the Ld.CIT(A) is not correct and the order impugned is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. AO from which it appears that the assessee was sought to be served by affixture at the premises of Sahihabad.

We are not going into this factual aspect of this matter at this moment because of the reason that the appeal is found to be not considered on merit, rather, the AO has not considered the merit of the matter as the assessee according to the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee could not appear before the assessment which is also reflecting in the Ld. AO’s order. Thus, in order to 2 prevent the miscarriage of justice, we would like to grant further opportunity of being heard to the assessee by remitting the issue to the file of the Ld. AO for proper adjudication of the same on merit upon granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.