PARVEEN SHARMA,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), NOIDA

At the outset, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(A) on the ground that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 14.03.2018 and 27.03.2018 when none appeared on behalf of the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee could not appear as notice of hearing was not received by him. Hence, it was prayed that the matter should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudicating the appeal of the assessee afresh.

The DR had no objection to the submission of the AR of the assessee.

In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) has stated in his order that the case was fixed for hearing on 14.03.2018 and again on 27.03.2018 when the assessee did not appear before him and, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. The CIT(A) in his order nowhere states that notice of hearing issued by him was served upon the assessee in absence of the same. I am of the considered opinion that dismissal of the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution for not justified. Hence, I set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file to adjudicate the appeal of the assessee afresh after allowing reasonable and proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.