MARLIN TRAVELS P.LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-16(2), NEW DELHI

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is seen that the appeal was found to be defective by the ld. CIT(A) in some respect, which fact was brought to the notice of the assessee. Adjournment was sought. Since the defect was not removed and the adjournment was sought without there being any valid Power of attorney, the ld. CIT(A) treated the appeal as defective and did not admit the same. This is how, the appeal came to be dismissed on this preliminary issue.

The ld. AR has given reasons for non-removal of defects and the absence of the assessee during the course of proceedings before the ld. first appellate authority. I am satisfied with such reasons tendered by the ld. AR for the absence and the non-removal of defects before the ld. CIT(A). I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the ld. first appellate authority to deal with the appeal afresh. Needless to say, the assessee will remove the defects in the appeal and the same shall be dealt with on merits, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.