HARITARA CONSTRUCTION CO,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 32(1)(5), MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:

Haritara Construction Co. 2. At the very outset, Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law as well as on the facts in dismissing the appeal ex-parte u/s 250(6) of the Act which is arbitrary & unjustified.

Apparently, from the records, there are no errors in the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) in providing opportunity to the assessee. We are also of the view that it was the bounded duty of the assessee or his counsel to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) in compliance of the notices issued to the assessee. The assessee had not acted with due diligence and no plausible reasoning have been shown for non-compliance of directions passed by Ld.

Haritara Construction Co. CIT(A) and for not participating before the first appellate authority.

Nevertheless the principles of natural justice demands that the lis between the parties should be decided on merits after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Although in the present case adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties was given but still the assessee has not appeared and participated before the first appellate authority and has now raised a plea that sufficient and reasonable opportunity was not provided to the assessee.

In our view, if a further opportunity to the assessee for contesting his case before Ld. CIT(A) is allowed, no prejudice

Haritara Construction Co. would be caused to the interest of revenue as legitimate taxes due on the assessee’s correct income will be collected. Whereas, if the contrary view is taken, then in that eventuality the assessee may be put to great hardship and difficulty. Therefore, keeping in view the above discussion and without commenting anything on the merits of the other grounds raised by the assessee, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice would be met in setting aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and remitting the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for providing further opportunity to the assessee to contest its claim on merits.

Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the issues, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. With these directions, this ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Haritara Construction Co. 5. Since, we decided the main ground of appeal and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for providing further opportunity to the assessee, therefore the other grounds of appeal become academic.

6. In the net result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th April, 2018. Sd/- Sd/- (R.C. Sharma) (Sandeep Gosain) लेखासदस्य / Accountant Member न्याययकसदस्य / Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai;यदनांकDated : 26.04.2018 Sr.PS. Dhananjay आदेशकीप्रनिनिनिअग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent 2. 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT- concerned यवभागीयप्रयतयनयध, आयकरअपीलीयअयधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, 5. Mumbai 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard File आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,