MANOJ BHATIA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-34(4), NEW DELOHI

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order against the principles of natural justice by way of exparte order in not providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee and not decided the appeal on merits. Hence, he requested that the issues in dispute may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh on merits and pass a speaking order thereon.

On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

I have heard both the parties and perused the records. It was the contention of the assessee’s counsel that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte non-speaking order and dismissed the appeal by not providing sufficient opportunities to the assessee, which is against the principle of natural justice. I further find that Ld. CIT(A), has only upheld the order of the AO and passed the exparte order, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issues in dispute afresh, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the parties and pass a speaking order. However, the Assessee through his Counsel is directed to cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) in the proceedings and appear before him on 27.02.2019 at 10.00 AM and produce all the documents before him to substantiate its claim and not to take any unnecessary adjournment. 2

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose.