PRABHUDAS GIRDHARLAL RADHANPURA,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD 2 (1) (3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order by contending that the assessee could not represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) and the order being an ex-parte order, stood vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the appellate proceedings, the notice from the Ld.CIT(A) were not delivered on the assessee, therefore, the assessee could not attend the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) and could not file the documents and details before the Ld. CIT(A) and as a result the Ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order, therefore, Ld. Counsel contended that now the assessee wants, to submit documents and details before the Ld.CIT(A), hence, in the interest of justice, matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ld. DR for the Revenue did not raise any objection if the matter is restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. I note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the assessment was carried out u/s 143(3) the Act and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is an ex parte order and non- speaking order, therefore, I do not wish to make any comments on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.