M.BALASUBRAMANIAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, PONDICHERRY

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Puducherry dated 23.12.2016 in /CIT(A)-PDY/2013- 14 for the assessment year 2010-11 passed u/s.250(6) r.w.s.143(3) of the Act.

The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal, however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limini for want of prosecution.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 electronically on 06.07.2010, admitting total income of Rs.9,59,280/-. Initially the return was processed U/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and finally order U/s.143(3) of the Act was passed on 22.02.2013, wherein the Ld.AO made several additions. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). However, when the appeal was taken up for hearing neither the assessee was present before the Ld.CIT(A) nor he filed an adjournment petition. Therefore the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: “I have considered all the facts as above and the assessee’s complete absence of earnestness in following up the appeal. The assessee has not even filed any condonation petition for the delay in filing the appeal. There was no response from the assessee for all the hearing notices issued. The assessee has not furnished any cause, leave along sufficient cause, for not presenting the appeal within time in terms of section 249(3), in spite of several opportunities of hearing were given to the assessee.”

At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted before us that the assessee had filed the appeal and entrusted the matter to his counsel, however the counsel failed to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) at the time of hearing and he also did not intimate the assessee. The Ld.AR further pleaded stating that the assessee was not aware of the absence of his counsel before the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore he should not be penalized. The Ld.DR on the other hand vehemently argued stating that the assessee had not co-operated before the Ld.CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings and hence the matter may not be remitted back.

I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials available on record. Though the plea of the assessee is not appreciable, however in the interest of justice, I remit back the matter to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration thereby providing the assessee with one more opportunity of being heard. I also caution the assessee to promptly co-operate before the Ld.CIT(A) in his appellate proceedings failing which the Ld.CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.