MIDLAND APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-17(2), DELHI

Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that appeal was disposed of by the Ld.CIT(Appeals), NFAC without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and without going into the merits of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the CIT(Appeals), NFAC issued hearing notices via e-mail. However, these notices were sent to an incorrect email address namely ksjco.ca@gmail.com instead of registered email address i.e. ashish3322@gmail.com as explicitly stated in Form 35. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel submitted that in view of this the assessee remained unaware and consequently was unable to participate in appeal proceedings. Therefore, Ld. Counsel requested that the appeal may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Ld. DR has no serious objection.

Heard rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) order it is noticed that the assessee was provided with only three opportunities and further the appeal was dismissed mainly for non-prosecution by the assessee without going into the merits of the addition made.

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