SEEMA SANJEEV BUCKSHEE,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 26(3)(1), MUMBAI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 38, Mumbai [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 28/11/2018 for the assessment year 2013-14.

Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, representing the Department submitted that the assessee has no respect for the notices sent by the CIT(A). The notices were sent to the assessee on three occasions and all the three notices were duly served on the assessee. Despite service of notices, the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A). The ld. Departmental Representative prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee and upholding the impugned order.

Heard. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is an exparte order. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) despite service of notices. Since, non appeared on behalf of the assessee and no written submissions were filed by the assessee, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in an ex-parte proceedings. Considering entire facts, in the interest of justice another opportunity is granted to the assessee to appear before the CIT(A) and extend full co-operation to the CIT(A) in first appellate proceedings.

The impugned order is quashed and the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. The CIT(A) shall decide the appeal after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, in accordance with law.