HERITAGE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (P) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE II(2), CHENNAI

Mr. K. Meenakshisundaram, Income Tax Practitioner represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr. A.R.V. Sreenivasan, Additional CIT represented on behalf of the Revenue. & 986/Chny/2019 :- 2 -:

When these two appeals are taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the Assessee had submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed an ex-parte order and submitted that the assessee could not appear before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), as circumstances were beyond his control. He prayed that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to substantiate his case before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has not raised any objections.

We have heard both the sides and perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below.

We find that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had passed an ex-parte order on 27th June, 2017. We are of the view that in the interest of justice and by following the principles of natural justice, one more opportunity should be given to the Assessee. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and remit the matter back to the file of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. We further observe that the learned Counsel for the assessee is directed to appear before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) when the date is given for & 986/Chny/2019 :- 3 -: hearing without fail. In view of the above, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in I.T.A.Nos.985 & 986/Chny/2019 are allowed for statistical purpose.