MAHENDRA PRASAD,BUXAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BUXAR

At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 78 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence, we condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order was passed ex-parte by the learned CIT (A) as well as before the learned 3.1. We after hearing the submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that apparently this appeal was decided ex-parte by the learned CIT (A) as well as before the learned Assessing Officer. We note that despite numerous notices, none presented before the ld. CIT (A) and the ld. CIT (A) passed an ex- parte order in limine without deciding the issues at merit, which in our opinion is in violation of Provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, this appeal is restored to the file of the learned CIT (A) with a direction to decide the same on merit after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is further clarified that assessee should also not seek any adjournments unless otherwise required for valid and reasonable cause.

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