VIBHA SHUKLA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 30(3)(5), MUMBAI

The above titled appeals have been preferred by the different assessees against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to various assessment years. Since the facts and issues involved therein are identical in nature, hence the same are taken together for disposal by this common order.

During the course of hearing, in all these appeals it was pointed out by the assessee that assessee was unable to remain present before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order in absence of assessee. The Ld. A.R. stated before the Bench that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and deserved to be quashed.

On being asked, Ld. D.R. has objected to it.

Having heard both the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay I restore these matters back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to remain present before the Ld. CIT(A) within two months from the receipt of this order. Ld. CIT(A), thereafter, is directed to give the reasonable opportunity to assessee to defend his case and pass the order as per law.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.