DR KASARGOD BALAKRISHNA MALLYA,UDUPI vs. ITO (IT) 4(1), MUMBAI

The learned AR appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee is no more and he is represented by his wife Mrs. Bharti Mallya. He submitted that the notice received from the learned CIT(A) was sent to the legal representative of the assessee, but the legal representative took adjournment twice before the learned CIT(A). Hence, the learned CIT(A) has proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without hearing the assessee. The Learned AR submitted that, considering peculiar circumstances of the case, the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity to present his case before the learned CIT(A).

We heard learned DR and perused the record. We noticed that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte, without presence of the assessee. Considering the circumstances of the case, we find merit in the prayer of learned AR. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for examining them afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, appeal filed by the s is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.