CHITTI BABU,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, VELLORE

आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

1. 3. Per Contra, the Ld.DR does not want us to interfere with the action of the Ld.CIT(A) because the assessee didn’t respond to the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A).

4. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) is ex parte qua assessee.

It is noted that the AO has reopened the assessment of the assessee and has passed order by making addition of ₹70,54,338/- by order dated 15.03.2023; and the assessee is noted to have filed appeal against the action of the AO wherein the assessee inter-alia has challenged the validity of the reopening of assessment made by the AO which has not been dealt by the Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal on the ground that assessee failed to respond to his notices. The assessee attributes the failure to respond to non-receipt of notices from the Ld.CIT(A)’s office. Be that as it may, since the Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex parte order against the assessee, we find that there is per-se violation of natural justice and therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to his file with a direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee [both legal and on merits] and to decide the same in accordance to Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘). The assessee is also directed to file relevant documents as well as written submissions in support of grounds of appeal without fail and the Ld.CIT(A) to pass speaking order and if necessary, call for Remand Report.