Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI
Before: Shri C.M.Garg, JM & Shri L.P.Sahu, AM
ORDER Per C.M.Garg, AM:
This appeal by the Assessee has been filed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 29/07/2013 for AY 1997-98 passed in first appeal no. 399/2007-08. The sole ground of the assessee reads as follows : 1. That the action of ld. CIT (Appeals)-19, New Delhi by confirming the Assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, disregarding the facts and circumstances of the case, is unjust, arbitrary and against the naturals justice.”
We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the relevant assessment order and impugned order
2 Varsha Spinning Mills. Ltd. of the CIT(A). The Ld. AR pointed out that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) provided due opportunity of heaving of the assessee and the case may kindly restored to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication.
The ld. DR strongly supported the action of the AO as well as of the CIT(A) and contended that whenafter due service of notice the assessee did not attend proceedings then the authorities has no option but to decide the case/ appeal ex parte. However, he did nto raise any objection to the prayer of the Ld. AR and submitted that if it is found necessary and proper then the department has no serious objection to restoring the case to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication.
In view of the above submissions of the parties we are of the considered opinion that due to one reason or other. The assessed could not get opportunity to place his case property before the AO and CIT(A) and thus to meet ends of justice and to prevent injury caused to it due to violation of principles of natural justice, we find it appropriate to restore the case to the file of the AO for afresh and de novo framing of assessment order after
3 Varsha Spinning Mills. Ltd. affording due opportunity of hearing to the assesse. We order accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 27/07/2016)