SANKET MURKUTE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-4(3), NAGPUR

On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that despite the learned CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee, however, the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A) and not furnished relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A) which resulted in passing ex–parte order by the learned CIT(A). We fully agree with the observations of the learned CIT(A), who, by dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex–parte, observed that the law assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. We observe that though the learned CIT(A) granted opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its case, ultimately, the order passed by him is an ex-parte order. Therefore, in view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that by following the principles of natural justice, one opportunity should be given to the assessee to substantiate the case before the learned CIT(A). In this view of the matter, we deem it fit and appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) and direct him to adjudicate the matter afresh on merit and in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is also directed that the assessee should not seek adjournment without there being a justified reason. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.