M/S. BEE KAY PRECISION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-V, KANPUR

By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non prosecution, observing that notices dated 14.12.2017 and 09.01.2018 for compliance on 07.12.2017 and 17.01.2018 were served on the e-mail address submitted by the assessee while e-filing

We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We noted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order as according to him, nobody has appeared on the date when the appeal was fixed for hearing before him. The order of the CIT(A) talks of the notice/s having been ‘issued’ or ‘sent’ to the assessee and mentions nothing with regard to service thereof on the assessee. We also noticed from the order of the CIT(A) that he has summarily decided the appeal of the assessee without giving any cogent reason and his order is non speaking order. Under these circumstances, we feel that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee as ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits. The provision of section 250 which deals with the procedure in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), allows a right to an assessee to be heard at the time of hearing of appeal. Even the natural justice demands that no appeal should be disposed of without being heard the party or without giving him the proper and sufficient opportunity. We, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play to both the parties, set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction that the CIT(A) shall refix the said appeal and decide the appeal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for