PRAMOD PANDAY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

Vide ground no. 1, the grievance of the assessee relates to the ex parte order passed by the learned CIT(A). Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.7.2013 declaring an income of Rs. 30,82,910/-. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO made the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- by making the disallowance u/s 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act). Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the learned CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal ex parte for want of prosecution. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal. 5. The learned Sr. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. In the present case, it is noticed that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte for non prosecution without discussing the case on merit. He simply stated that the notices issued for fixing the dates of hearing were either not complied with or adjournments were sought by the assessee by making excuses. However, nothing is brought on record to substantiate that there was no reasonable cause while seeking the adjournment. It is also not brought on record as to whether the notices issued were served upon the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “Audi Alteram Partem”. I, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice remit this case back to the file of the learned CIT(A) to be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.