M/S. VARRSANA ISPAT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO (TDS), WARD - 59(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

It emerges at the outset that the CIT(A)’s ex parte orders identical in all cases have prepared a compilation chart of various opportunities of hearing afforded to these three assessees during the course of lower appellate proceedings. These assessee’s admittedly never appeared therein. Learned counsel invites our attention to the fact that there is not even an observation in any of the CIT(A)’s orders indicating actual service of the relevant hearing notices. His case is that all these assessees’ addresses have remained unchanged right from section 201(1) proceedings till date. Learned Departmental Representative fails to pin point any such proof of actual service of hearing notice(s) in the CIT(A)’s order(s) under challenge granting effective opportunity of hearing during lower appellate proceedings. Coupled with this, there is no adjudication u/s 250(6) in the CIT(A)’s findings as well since he has simply confirmed Assessing Officer’s action(s) on merits without any discussion. We therefore restore all these three cases back to the CIT(A) for afresh adjudication as per law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessees/appellants.