ASHWANI KUMAR BHARDWAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The Registry has pointed out that the appeals are barred by limitation by 46 days. The assessee moved an application for condonation of delay stating therein that the Counsel of the assessee was hospitalized at the time of receipt of the impugned orders and thereafter. In support of the above contention a medical certificate issued by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi dated 01.03.2016 has been furnished, which is placed on record. It appears that there was a & 2019/Del/2016 2 Ashwani Kumar Bhardwaj reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within time and delay was not intentional or malafide. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeals are admitted.

In both these appeals identical grounds have been raised and the main grievance of the assessee is against the ex-parte order passed by the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A).

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material on the record. It is noticed that for both the assessment years, the AO passed the assessment order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the ld. CIT(A) also passed the impugned orders ex-parte. Although the ld. CIT(A) mentioned that the assessee sought adjournments however, the appeals were decided ex-parte. It is well settled that nobody should condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to remand these cases back to the file of the AO to be decided afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. & 2019/Del/2016 3 Ashwani Kumar Bhardwaj 5. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 20/09/2016)