SURESH KUMAR GUPTA HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-35(2), NEW DELHI

ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee, wherein correctness of the order dated 27.09.2018 of CIT(A)-12, New Delhi pertaining to 2014-15 assessment year is assailed on various grounds including ground No. 1, which reads as under “1. That the order passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. CIT(A) on 27.09.2018 thereby upholding the penalty of Rs.8,89,128/- was perverse to the law and to the facts of the case, because of not affording reasonable and proper opportunity to the appellant prior proceeded to confirm the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer.

2 2. The ld. AR submitted that the penalty upheld is invalid in law.

However, considering the fact that the impugned order is an ex parte order where the appeal has been dismissed for non-representation, the ld. AR made a prayer to seek remand of the issue to the file of ld. CIT(A).

The ld. Sr. DR, on considering the material on record, did not oppose the said request.

In the light of submissions of both the parties, the impugned order is set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits in accordance with law by way of speaking order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee in its own interest is advised to make full and proper representation and not to abuse the trust reposed. In the eventuality to abuse the trust reposed, the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to decide the issue on the basis of material available on record.