SATISH LACKAMICHAND AGARWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned CIT(A)-3 erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of ITA, 1961 amounting to Rs.13,05,711/- levied by learned AO. 2. The learned CIT(A)-3, Pune erred on facts in not providing adequate opportunity of being heard before levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of ITA, 1961.

The assessee though has raised two different issues but the preliminary issue raised is vide ground of appeal No.2 i.e. against non-affording of opportunity of hearing by the CIT(A).

We proceed to decide the said issue before going into the merits of additions made by authorities.

The perusal of the order of CIT(A) reflects that the appeal was fixed for hearing on different dates. The CIT(A) vide para 3.3 of the appellate order notes that notices were issued and were returned back by the Postal authorities. However, the assessee was given another notice but there was no compliance. The perusal of the appellate order and the Appeal Memo in Form No.36 reflects that there is change in address of assessee and hence, mis- communication. Since the notices were returned, no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the assessee.

We are of the view that the CIT(A) has failed to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in the circumstances where the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for non-appearance on the slated dates of hearing. In the interest of justice and following the principles of natural justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue on merits, back to the file of CIT(A), who shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the CIT(A) on the date fixed for hearing and comply with same and file the submissions before the CIT(A). Thus, ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical

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