MR. DAISUKE SUZUKI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the

order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-21, New Delhi

dated 10.01.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2008-09.

2.0 At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the order of the ld.

CIT(A) was passed ex parte because the notice of hearing could

not be served on the assessee as the assessee was an expatriate.

The ld. AR submitted that now the assessee has appointed him as

the authorised representative for the income tax proceedings and

ITA No. 1012/Del/2017 Assessment year 2008-09

he assured the Bench that if given the opportunity, the case of

the assessee will be represented before the ld. CIT(A).

2.1 The ld. Sr. DR had no objection to the appeal being restored

to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

2.2 Accordingly, in view of the submissions by both the parties,

we restore this issue to the office of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the

authorised representative to appear before the ld. CIT(A) on 10th

October, 2019. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the issues

in the appeal afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee

to present its case.

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30th July, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/-

(O.P. KANT) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 30th JULY, 2019 ‘GS’

ITA No. 1012/Del/2017 Assessment year 2008-09