MUKTI BHATNAGAR,MEERUT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] – IV, Kanpur dated 04.10.2018 pertaining to A.Y 2014-15.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1.25 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'].

At the very outset, the ld. AR stated that the assessee could not attend the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) as she was residing in Delhi and had received the notice through E-mail. The ld. AR pointed out that though on the first occasion, an adjournment was sought, which was granted, but on the subsequent date of hearing, the ld. AR could not attend the proceedings at Kanpur and the appeal was decided exparte. The ld. AR pleaded for one more opportunity to explain the case.

Though the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the CIT(A), but did not oppose to the restoration of the appeal to the CIT(A).

I have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the first appellate authority. The appeal has been decided ex parte. Though the notices were served electronically, but the contention of the ld. AR that on the date of hearing at Kanpur, the counsel could not reach on the specified date cannot be brushed aside lightly. In the interest of justice I deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal afresh after serving notice upon the assessee and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.