LAXMI NARAYAN PAREEK,BIKANER vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, BIKANER

We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee by stating that appellant was not interested in prosecuting the appeal, as there was no response to the notice of hearings from the assessee. However, Ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned the facts of the date of service of these notices on the assessee issued u/s 250 of the Act, to enable the assessee to present his submissions in defence of the claims made in the grounds of appeal. He has placed reliance on high Court Judgement with discussing the applicability of said judgement to the present case where the factum of service of notice of hearing on the assessee is neither mentioned nor inferred from the record that certainly tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice and debarred the assessee an adequate opportunity to argue it case before the CIT (A) on merits.

In our view, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits after granting adequate opportunity by proper service of notice on the assessee and He deemed to have disproved the claim of the assesse by rebutting its contention with support of corroborative documentary evidence on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tin Box Company vs. CIT reported in 249 ITR 216 in which their Lordships of Supreme Court of India observed as under: "Assessment - Opportunity of being heard - Setting aside of assessment - Assessment order must be made after the assessee has been given reasonable opportunity of setting out his case - Same not done - Fact that the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence for it is assessment order that counts — Assessment order set aside and matter remanded to assessing authority for fresh consideration."