VEERESH ASHOKUMAR SIKKEDESAI ,GADAG vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , GADAG

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

by the assessee are as under. Tax effect relating to each Ground of Grounds of Appeal appeal (see note below) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the replacement of 1. Rs. 2,48,962/- cost of acquisition @ Rs.32,708/- as against Rs.1,00,000/- claimed as on 01-04-1981. The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that learned Income

2. Tax Officer has not considered the -do- objections of the appellant properly and there is no case to adopt the cost of acquisition at Rs.32,708/- and whole order of assessment is opposed to law. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred 3. in not considering the -do- writtensubmission of the appellant. The order of the Learned

4. Commissioner of Income Tax -do- (Appeals) is not a speaking order The orders passed by learned 5. authorities below is not -do- sustainable in law. The appellant prays that this Hon'ble be pleased to permit the 6. appellant to add, delete or modify any ground or grounds at the time of hearing.

3. It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the impugned order of CIT(A) is ex-parte qua the assessee. At this juncture, a query was raised by the bench as to how many dates were fixed by CIT(A) for hearing. In this regard, ld. AR of assessee drawn my attention to Para 4.2 of the order of CIT(A) and she fairly conceded that although seven dates of hearing were fixed by CIT(A) on 1) 22.12.2016, 2) 30.01.2018, 3) 05.04.2018, 4) 23.04.2018, 5) 21.05.2018, 6) 15.06.2018 & 7) 28.08.2018 but the assessee could not appear before CIT(A). She submitted that assessee is an illiterate person residing in a village and hence, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee for appearing before CIT (A). She gave an undertaking that if the matter is restored back to CIT (A), the assessee will definitely appear before CIT (A) this time. The ld. DR of revenue submitted that sufficient opportunities were provided by CIT (A) and therefore, no further opportunity should be provided to assessee.

4. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that this is true that ld. CIT(A) has provided several opportunities and he has fixed the appeal for hearing on 7 dates and except on one date i.e. 23.04.2018 when the assessee made a request for adjournment, on all other dates, the assessee has Page 3 of 3 neither appeared nor made any request for adjournment. But considering these facts that the assessee is an illiterate person residing in a village, I feel it proper that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be provided to assessee. In this regard, I also take note of this fact that ld. AR of assessee has given an undertaking that if the matter is restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision, the assessee will appear before CIT(A). Hence, in the facts of the present case and in the interest of justice, I set aside the order of CIT (A) and restore the matter back to his file for fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this, no adjudication on merit is called for at the present stage.