SH. VIJAY PAL SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

At the time of hearing, Sh. Rajesh Jain, CA/Authorised Representative of the Assessee filed an Application for admitting the additional evidences under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules and stated that the Assessee could not collect acknowledgement for filing the Income Tax Return of the creditors in the subsequent year and also the document which may establish the identity of M/s Sushila Steels. During the course of proceedings before the lower authority he could not produce the additional evidences attached with the Application, hence, the same may be admitted and the issue in dispute may be decided accordingly. He has also filed the Paper Book containing pages 1 to 182 in which he has attached various documentary evidences and also certified that the documentary evidence at Serial No. 1 to 4 are copies of their original documents which form part of assessment proceedings before the AO. But at that time hearing, Ld. CIT(DR) raised the objection that assessee remained non-cooperative before the Ld. CIT(A) and did not appear in spite of the various opportunities given by the Ld. CIT(A). He draw our attention towards para no. 5 at Page no. 12 of the impugned order and stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has fixed the hearing of the case of assessee many times by issuing the notices to the assessee through Speed Post on the address given in Form No. 35, but assessee did not attend the proceedings nor filed any application for adjournment. Therefore, no lenient view can be taken in the case of the assessee and he requested that the Appeal filed by the assessee may be dismissed.

We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records especially the impugned order alongwith the documentary evidences filed by the assessee and we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has issued notice dated 14.3.2016 for 18.4.2016, and notice dated 27.4.2016 for 04.5.2016 and notice dated 06.5.2016 for 13.5.2016, but the Assessee did not attend, nor filed any Application for adjournment and the Ld. CIT(A) after giving last opportunity for 13.5.2016 had decided the case of the assessee against the assessee by dismissing the appeal of the assessee vide impugned order dated 25.5.2016. After going through the impugned order, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has not written anywhere in the impugned order that the notice of hearing has been served upon the assessee. Merely issuing the notice does not mean the services on the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are setting aside the issue in dispute to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As per the impugned order, we feel that there is some mistake in the address of the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are giving the direction to the Assessee through his Authorised Representative Sh. Rajesh Jain, CA to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 15.03.2017 at 10.00 am and to remain cooperate before him and did not take any unnecessary adjournment. However, Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to decide the case as per law. It is made clear that no notice is required to be issued and served upon the assessee for 15.03.2017, because this Order has been pronounced in the Open Court.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16/01/2017.