SMT PRATHIBA JAIN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(2), BANGALORE

The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Bangalore passed u/s.271(1)(c) and u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) for the Asst. Year 2009-10.

At the time of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the CIT (Appeals) has not provided adequate opportunity of hearing and granted only one date for appearance and unilaterally passed ex parte order. Further prayed for one more opportunity to substantiate the case on merits. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of CIT (Appeals).

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the CIT (Appeals) order, the CIT (Appeals) has observed that none appeared and based on the material available on record, the appeal is disposed off. We found that he has suomoto dealt on the material, in respect of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and dismissed the assessee's appeal. On perusal of the CIT (Appeals) order, the date of hearing provided to the assessee was on 26.06.2018 and there was no other date of hearing referred in the order. We are of the opinion, that there can be various reasons for non-appearance of the assessee and therefore considering the principles of natural justice, we shall provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of CIT (Appeals) and restore the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT (Appeals) to adjudicate afresh on merits and pass a speaking order after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessee shall co-operate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal and we order accordingly.

In the result, the assessee's appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.