LAXMIPATI VINIMAY PVT. LTD., ,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

At the outset itself, the Ld. AR brought to our notice that the impugned order is an ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and assessee’s postal address is at Siliguri and the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) was received subsequent to the date fixed for hearing or one day before the date of hearing so, the assessee could not present itself through its Ld. AR before the Ld. CIT(A) prompting the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal ex parte. We note that the assessee’s address is at Siliguri and the assessee has received some notice after the date fixed for hearing or a day before the hearing. So, the assessee could not inform the Ld. AR about the date of hearing, which resulted in the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal ex parte. Since there is a reasonable cause for assessee/Ld. AR of the assessee not appearing before the Ld. CIT(A), we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Since the impugned order is an ex parte order and the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the question of facts and law raised by the assessee, we are inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter

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