KHAIRABAD EYE HOSPITAL SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, KANPUR

PER BENCH: These are assessee’s appeals against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-II, Kanpur, all dated 30.12.2014, for Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 2. By virtue of the impugned orders, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeals for non-prosecution, observing that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The ld. CIT(A) has observed to have issued two notices each, fixing the dates of hearing and passed the order on 30.12.2014, dismissing the appeals qua the assessee. But, it is not clear from his orders whether notice of hearing was ever served upon the assessee. Such service of notices has, however, been disputed by the assessee. 3. Heard. We find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals without providing proper opportunity to the assessee. Moreover, Page 2 of 2 he has not decided the appeals after discussing in detail, his reasons for agreeing with the assessment orders. In this view of the matter, another opportunity of hearing requires to be given to the assessee to represent his case fully before the ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise, it is trite [‘S. Velu Palandar Vs. DCIT’ 83 ITR 683 (Mad.) and ‘Ms. Swati Pawa vs. Dy. CIT’, 175 ITD 622 (Del)] and incumbent on the ld. CIT(A) to decide an appeals on merit even in the absence of any representation before them.