SANGEETA KIRTI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 21(2)(4), MUMBAI

2. Brief facts and of the case are that the assessee is proprietor of M/s Kushal Investments and Spectrum Consultancy, engaged in the business of providing consultancy services, filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2011-12 on 25.11.2011 declaring total loss of Rs. 1,31,235/-. The assessment was completed on 26.03.2014 under section 143(3). The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order besides the other Mum 17 - Sangeeta Kirti Shah disallowances made addition of Rs. 19,80,311/- under section 14A and addition of Rs. 50,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer was upheld, therefore, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee and ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. Ground No.1 is general in nature, hence needs no adjudication, therefore, dismissed. 4. Ground No.2 relates to not granting opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex- parte without giving fair and proper opportunity. No notice of hearing was served upon the assessee, therefore, neither the assessee nor her representative could appear before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) violated the principle of natural justice. The order was passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the matter may be restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of the grounds of appeal afresh. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld DR for the revenue further submits that when neither the assessee nor her representative appeared before ld CIT(A), the ld CIT(A) has no option but to decide the case ex-parte. Mum 17 - Sangeeta Kirti Shah

5. We have considered the submission of parties and gone through the orders of authorities below. We have noted that ld. CIT(A) has recorded that hearing of the appeal was fixed on 27.07.2016 and that none attended the proceeding. The hearing of appeal was again fixed on 07.09.2016, when none appeared, the appeal was adjourned for 22.09.2016 and finally for 07.10.2016. The ld. CIT(A), thereafter, decided the appeal ex-parte. We have noted that the appeal was filed on 22.04.2014. As per impugned order, the hearing of appeal was fixed for the first time on 27.07.2016 and thereafter, on 07.09.2016, 22.09.2016 and finally on 07.10.2016. We have noted that the impugned order is silent, as to how, the notice was sent or served. No mode of service as to how, in manner it was served, the impugned order is silent. The impugned order, if the notice was sent through the registered post or by special messenger or by any other mode.

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.