VINOD KUMAR PROP. ,KARNAL vs. ITO, WARD- 5, KARNAL

At the outset, the Authorized Representative submitted that the assessee could not appear before ld. CIT(A) as the assessee had closed the business at the address where it was doing such business and it was prayed that matter may be set aside to ld. CIT(A) who should decide the issue on merits.

The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, stated that the notice was served upon the assessee by notice server also still there have been no compliance and therefore, the appeal of the assessee should be dismissed.

I have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. I find that the first notice to assessee on 2 Vinod Kumar 09.10.2018 was issued fixing the date of hearing on 25.10.2018 but it did not evoke any response and second notice dated 29.10.2018 also did not invoke any response. The ld. CIT(A) has noted that second notice was served upon the assessee through notice server. However, I feel that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to present his case before ld. CIT(A). Therefore, I remit the matter back to ld. CIT(A) who should pass a fresh order on merits after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee of being heard. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings before ld. CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the Court on 30 t h day of May, 2019 at New Delhi)