N.K.R.SHANMUGAM,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO WARD 3, PONDICHERRY

2 2. Before us, none appeared for the assessee and Revenue was represented by ld. Senior DR, Shri G.Johnson.

On perusal of the order of ld.CIT(A), it is noted that in the first appellate stage also, the assessee was represented by none. The ld.CIT(A) has noted about several hearings fixed for giving opportunity to the appellant to make his case. However, the assessee failed to avail the opportunities and did not make the required submissions to defend his case. The ld.CIT(A) proceeded to dispose off the appeal based on material available on record. From the perusal of order of ld.CIT(A) it is observed that findings of the ld.AO have been sustained / confirmed simpliciter without giving his own independent findings on the issues involved. We find that in the interest of justice and fair play, it will be appropriate for the ld.CIT(A) to re-consider the matter by giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee by calling required submissions and documentary evidences to support the case. The appellate authority has to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of assessee and not to dismiss it for default. As in the present case, the CIT(A) has only simpliciter confirmed the AO’s order, in term of the above observation, we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file for meritorious disposal by 3 affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee is also directed to attend the hearings and co-operate in the matter for adjudication and disposal of the appeal before the ld.CIT(A).

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