DEVARAAYA ATLURI,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA.

At the outset, learned AR submitted that the assessee suffered Covid, due to the excessive administration of the Remdesivir injection there was a damage to his rib joints and he underwent surgical operations and the assessee was advised to take bed rest for a considerable period of time which resulted in nonappearance of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) on the date of hearing. Assessee filed the copies of the medical reports. The learned AR submitted that even in the absence of the assessee since the assessment order is available before the learned CIT(A), learned CIT(A) could have proceeded to advert to the merits of the case and disposed of by referring to the various aspects of merits. He, therefore, submits that the provisions under section 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) are not complied with.

Though the learned DR vehemently relied on the orders of the Revenue authorities, the fact remains that the learned CIT(A) did not refer to the facts nor did he dispose of the appeals on merits. Even in the absence of the assessee, it is always open for the learned CIT(A) to deal with the matter on merits, instead of dismissing the same in limine.

As could be seen from the record, we find that the learned CIT(A) disposed-of the appeals ex-parte, observing that various notices have been issued to the assessee, but the assessee failed to comply with any of such notices nor did the assessee produce any documents, explanation and evidence to substantiate the grounds raised.