PARVEEN GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, DELHI

All the three appeals filed by the assessee are on identical facts and hence for the purposes of convenience the same were heard together and are being adjudicated by his common order. Since,as admitted by Ld. DR, the facts are identical for all the assessment years, save for variations in figures, the decision taken in and also.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. DR informed that the assessment order was passed on account of incriminating document seized in search proceedings in the case of one Shri Pradeep Goyal. The Ld. DR invited our attention to para 4 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2011- 12 contested vide to submit that the assessee had not attended before the Ld. First appellate leading to passing of an exparte order by him.

We have considered the submissions of the Ld. DR and are of the view that the assessee has indeed not complied with the statutory notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). However, in a interest of justice we are the considered view that the assessee should be given by the Ld. CIT(A) before concluding the matter. We are conscious of the fact that no litigant benefits by non-prosecuting its case. Accordingly, the matter is set aside to be filed of Ld. CIT (A) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall comply with the notices and any non-compliance may be adversely viewed. The grounds of the appeal raised by the asseessee is allowed for the statistical purposes.

As facts of the case for and are identical to those in Mutatis Mutandis in and ITA no. 504/Del/2024 also.

and are also remitted back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result the appeal of the assessee vide ITA no.503/Del/2024 and are allowed for the statistical purposes.