SUVIKSHA HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ITO, NATIONAL E-ASSESMENT CENTRE

The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring total income as nil. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of default in deduction of tax at source (TDS) and disallowance of such default. In response to the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961,

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was a delay of 174 days in filing the appeal and that the assessee could not properly explain the reasons for such delay. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Being aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 242 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed a petition explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the same. However, when the matter was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor any adjournment petition was filed. We after perusal of the record, it is noticed that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex parte without adjudicating the matter on merits. In the interest of substantial justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to represent its case before the lower appellate authority. Accordingly, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure due

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