KAILASH HEMSINGH THAKUR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 26(2)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (in short ‘CIT(A)’) and it relates to A.Y 2017-18.

The learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not appear before the learned CIT(A) and hence filed adjournment letters before him seeking adjournments. However, the CIT(A) took the view that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Further, the Ld CIT(A) also decided the issues on merits by confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The learned AR submitted that the assessee did not get

We heard the learned DR and perused the record. We noticed that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte, since assessee did not appear before him. We also notice that the assessee has filed adjournment petitions before Ld CIT(A) on two occasions. The learned AR now submits that the assessee would be duly complying to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) and also all information and explanations before him. Accordingly, the Ld A.R pleads for providing one more opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, in the interests of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided with one more opportunity. Accordingly, we set-aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for adjudicating them afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the learned CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal.