ANIL KUMAR PANDEY,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), AURANGABAD

Shri Nishant Maitin, ld.AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashwani Kumar, ld.Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

The appeal of the assessee is barred by 304 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit along with medical documents stating therein sufficient reason for delay in filing the appeal, which are not found to be false. Accordingly, as the delay is on account of health issues of the assessee, therefore, the 304 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

Ld. AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex-parte without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It was submitted that if one more opportunity is provided to the assessee to represent the case before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee would be able to produce all the relevant documents to substantiate his claim.

In reply, ld.Sr. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee knowing did not appear before the ld. CIT(A) and even the assessee could not substantiate his claim before either of the authorities below. It was the submission that the orders of the authorities below should be upheld.

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of para 5.2 the impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A), shows that the notices were issued to the assessee, however, the assessee did not response to the same, neither any reply has been filed by the assessee. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the and in the interest of justice, we restore the issues to the file of Id. CIT(A) for readjudication afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) providing documentary evidence to substantiate his claim, positively.