ASHWANI SHARMA,NARNAUL vs. ITO, NARNAUL

However, at the time of hearing, an adjournment petition was moved on behalf of the assessee. Considering the submissions of the Ld. Sr.DR that no one was present on behalf of the assessee before the CIT(A) also and specific ground No.2 has been raised stating that no notice for the date of hearing was issued by the CIT(A), adjournment petition of the assessee was rejected directing the assessee to avail of the opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A) who in turn shall fix the case after giving due notice of the date of hearing to the assessee.

The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee declared an income of Rs.8,34,130/-. The said return was subjected to scrutiny assessments after issuance of notice under section 143(2)/142(1). The assessment was concluded at an income of Rs.15,89,890/- as a result of additions made in the course of the assessment proceedings which the assessee failed to explain to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The assessee took up the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). However, despite affording various opportunities, the assessee remained unrepresented. In view of the same, the impugned order was passed confirming the additions made during the assessment proceedings. Considering the submissions of the Ld. Sr.DR, I am of the view that in the interests of substantial justice, it I.T.A .No.-4479/Del/2016 Ashwani Sharma vs ITO