UTKRANTI SOLUTION PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(4), AHMEDABAD

The assessee, in the present case, is a company which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 25.09.2018 declaring a total income of Rs.2,40,191/-. The said return was processed by the CPC, Bangalore; and, in the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) on 27.12.2019, the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs.30,31,250/- after making certain additions.

Against the intimation/order passed under Section 143(1) of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) on the following grounds:-

The appeal filed by the assessee was fixed for hearing by the learned CIT(A) on 17.09.2020, 19.01.2021 and 15.11.2021, and since there was no satisfactory compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued fixing the said hearing, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution vide its appellate order dated 23.11.2021 passed ex parte. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. In support of the preliminary issue raised by the assessee in its appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) ex parte, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that an application was filed by the assessee on 15.11.2021 seeking adjournment of the hearing fixed on the said date. He has submitted that the learned CIT(A), however, did not consider the said application and proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution vide his impugned order passed ex parte. He has contended that the appeal of the assessee thus is dismissed by the learned CIT(A) without giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and there is a clear violation of principle of natural justice. Even the learned DR has not been able to dispute this position which is clearly evident from the record. We, therefore, consider it fair and proper and in the interest of justice

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