SH. MAHINDER SINGH BEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

At the outset, learned AR submitted that the impugned orders are ex parte in nature and the reason for non appearance of the assessee before the first appellate authority was the non service of notice. He explained that the notice was sent to the property which was sold by the assessee and that is the reason why the notice was not served upon the assessee. He submitted that vide S.No.24 of Form No.36, the assessee furnished the correct address now, which is as follows:

Learned DR submitted that it was for the assessee to furnish the correct address.

Inasmuch as, the impugned orders are ex parte in nature and the assessee properly explained that the notice was sent to the address at the property which was sold away by the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant an opportunity to the assessee to put forth his case before the first appellate authority, since all our endeavour is to see that the just tax liability of the assessee is determined. Further, when an ex parte order is set aside, the highest that would happen is that a cause could be decided on merits. No party can claim any vested right in perpetuation of the ex parte orders.

With this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to dispose them afresh after issuing notice to the address given above and affording an opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.