ANKUSH FINSTOCK LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

By way of this appeal, the assessee-appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 1st December, 2017 passed by the by the CIT(A), Ahmedabad-5 in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2005-06.

This appeal is time barred by 21 days but the assessee has moved a condonation petition supported by affidavit seeking condonation of delay. Having perused the material and having heard the learned Departmental Representative on the same, we are inclined to condone the delay and take up the matter on merits. 3. When this appeal was taken up for hearing, it was noticed that the impugned order dated 01.12.2017 passed by the learned CIT(A) is an ex-parte order and that the appellant could not attend the proceedings before the CIT(A). The impugned order is thus passed without the benefit of assistance by the assessee appellant and the assessee appellant is now in appeal before us.

In response to a question from the Bench, learned Departmental Representative fairly agreed that he has no objection to the matter being remitted to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication de novo, after giving yet another reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We think this is a fair approach and since the learned CIT(A) did not have the benefit of assistance from the

In view of this discussion and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and the assessee appellant be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. We order so.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on the 9th July, 2018