SMT.VEENA J KANUNGO,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(5), MUMBAI

Smt. Veena J. Kanaungo 2. At the very outset, we noticed that assessee had not appeared before Ld. CIT(A), therefore Ld. CIT(A) had passed ex-parte order and now, assessee had challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A).

We have heard the counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record well as the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that Ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order as nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee before Ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the order, we also noticed that initially the appeal was fixed on several dates, when the adjournment was sought by the assessee, thereafter the matter was adjourned. The details has already been mentioned in the order of Ld. CIT(A) at para no.5 of its order. We also noticed that although notices were served upon the assessee for appearance, but still nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) while relying upon the several judgments including that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy vrs. Shankar (1984) SCC 63

In our view, it was the bounded duty of the parties i.e assessee as well as the Department to appear before the Ld. CIT(A). Since, this was the assessee’s appeal, therefore it was all the more important for the assessee to appear before Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee had not acted with due diligence. Nevertheless, the principles of natural justice demands that the lis between the parties should be decided on merits after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and while considering the request of the assessee that he could not appear before Ld. CIT(A) because of unavoidable circumstances, therefore we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met only when we set aside the ex-parte order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore back the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding it afresh on merits after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee Smt. Veena J. Kanaungo subject to cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the assessee in the account of Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. With these directions, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the net result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th June, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (N. K. Pradhan) (Sandeep Gosain) लेखासदस्य / Accountant Member न्याययकसदस्य / Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai;यदनांकDated : 28.06.2019 Sr.PS. Dhananjay