JATIN SACHDEVA H.NO. 3842, SECTOR 32-A, CHANDIGARH ROAD, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1(4) LUDHIANA JAO ITO WARD 1(3), LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

Per contra Ld. DR has gone by the impugned order of CIT(A) and finally has left it to this Tribunal to pass appropriate orders according to law. 4. Observations, Findings & Conclusions 4.1 We notice that number of notice(s) were issued by the office of CIT(A) but none were responded to. The claim of the assessee is that notice(s) went on email id of earlier counsel and he did not intimate the assessee in time. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly passed exparte order. In form 35 we notice email id of anilpauljain25@gmail.com where notice(s) for hearing had gone which assessee now say that it is of his earlier counsel and that he (the counsel) never informed the assessee about the hearing dates. We notice that it is not recorded in the impugned order that notice(s) were served to assessee by post or other physical mode. Keeping in view the above observation of Punjab & Haryana High Court (supra) we are of the considered view that notice(s) ought to have gone even to assessee at least once in facts and circumstances by post or physical mode but unfortunately that has not happened in the instant case. 4.2 In the premises we set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of CIT(A) to pass a fresh order on denovo basis as exparte nature of orders of both the authorities below, cannot be just ignored. Order 5. 5.1 The impugned order is set aside as and by way of remand back to the file of CIT(A) to pass a fresh order on denovo basis. 5.2 In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/02/2025 Sd/- Sd/- िव�म िसंह यादव परेश म. जोशी ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (PARESH M. JOSHI) लेखासद�/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �ाियक सद� / JUDICIAL MEMBER AG