VASTRAM INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 10.03.2015 of CIT(A)-9, New Delhi pertaining to 2005-06 assessment year on various grounds. However, at the time of hearing, Ld.AR inviting attention to Ground no.5 raised in the present appeal, submitted that the impugned order may be set aside so as to afford the assessee an opportunity of being heard as the grounds raised by the assessee have been dismissed by the CIT(A) in the absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee. Inviting attention to the impugned order it was submitted that various notices are stated to have been sent to the assessee, however on the instructions of the assessee, he has been asked to make a statement that not one these have been received by the assessee. On query, it was clarified that there is no change in the address available on record. Since the order has been passed ex-parte without hearing the assessee, the prayer for remand it was requested may be allowed.

2. Ld. Sr.DR considering the fact that the order has been passed ex-parte did not object to the request for remand.

3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is seen that the issues leading to the addition of Rs.12,53,572/- on merits as well as on the jurisdiction were challenged in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after affording various opportunities to the assessee noted that the specific notices sent through speed post as per the India Post website showed delivery of the notices in the absence of any representation relying upon the decision of CIT vs Yamu Industries [2008] 306 ITR 309 (Delhi) concluded that the addition made was to be sustained. The Ld.AR has clarified that before the AO, the assessee was initially represented by Sh.D.C.Gupta, CA and on the last date of hearing by another counsel. It was submitted that he was not aware as to who I.T.A .No.-6682/Del/2015 Vastram India Pvt.Ltd. vs DCIT Page 2 of 2 represented the assessee before the CIT(A). However, his instructions were that no notice for any of the specific dates of hearing have been received by the assessee and the prayer for opportunity of being heard was thus made. Accepting the oral undertaking of the Ld.AR the impugned order in the interests of justice is set aside and the issues are restored back to the file of the CIT(A). It is hoped that the opportunity so provided is used by the assessee by fully participating in the proceedings before the CIT(A) and the opportunity provided in good faith is not abused. In the eventuality of failure to participate in the proceedings, it is made clear that the Ld.CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass a speaking order in accordance with law on the basis of material available on record. The said order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the open Court.

I.T.A .No.-6682/Del/2015 Vastram India Pvt.Ltd. vs DCIT