NITIN MARUTI HARPALE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(4), PUNE

The first issue which is raised in the present appeal is jurisdictional issue, which I proceed to adjudicate first.

The ground of appeal No.1 reads as under:-

The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the CIT(A) had not given reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He stated that the assessee was prevented from appearing on the slated date of hearing and the appeal of assessee was dismissed without affording another opportunity of hearing.

The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue pointed out that CIT(A) has decided the issue on merits of case.

On perusal of record and after hearing both the learned Authorized Representatives, the first issue which arises in the present appeal is against dismissal of appeal ex-parte by the CIT(A). Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had furnished the return of income declaring total income of ₹ 2,41,140/-. The case of assessee was picked up for scrutiny. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer applied provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act and made an addition of ₹ 8,20,000/-. Further, addition was made on account of interest from bank of ₹ 48,276/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) fixed the hearing on 25.01.2018. The assessee sought adjournment and the case was adjourned to 12.02.2018. However, none appeared on the said date and the appeal was decided by CIT(A) ex-parte the assessee. The principles of natural justice demand that reasonable opportunity of hearing be provided to the assessee for putting forward its arguments. However, in the present set of facts, the appeal has been decided ex-parte the assessee without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed as indicated above.