H.P. AND SONS,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 47(4), DELHI

In this case an adjournment letter was received from the assessee which was rejected and it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR. 1.1 The Ld. AR was asked to inform bench about the facts of the case.It was pointed out by the Ld. AR that both the orders of the authorities below were ex parte in nature since the assessee could not make any presentation of facts before either of the authorities below. It was further informed that due to a communication gap between the assessee and his tax consultant the notices issued by the authorities below could not be responded too. It was a prayer that the assessee has a good case on merits and hence the Bench could consider giving another chance to present the facts.

The Ld. DR pointed out that the assessee was non-compliant all through the proceedings below, but there would be no objection in case the matter was to be remanded back for fresh adjudication.

We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of substantive justice, it is felt that the assessee deserves another chance to prove his bona fides before the Ld. CIT(A). To this extent, we set aside the impugned order and remand the same back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.