MANJUNATHA MARAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 25.03.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2019-20.

At the very outset, we notice that the CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex- parte. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay of 444 days. The reason for deciding the appeal ex-parte was that assessee did not reply to the notices issued from the Office of the CIT(A) to file written submissions. The learned AR submitted that assessee did not receive notice of hearing issued from the Office of the CIT(A). It was submitted that in the interest of justice and equity, one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee to represent his case before the CIT(A).

The learned DR was duly heard.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Office of the CIT(A) had issued several notices directing the assessee to file written submissions. Since there was no response by the assessee to the notices issued by the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed ex-parte order. It is the claim of the assessee that assessee did not receive any of the hearing notices sent from the Office of the CIT(A). In the interest of justice and equity, we are of the view that assessee ought to be provided with one more opportunity to represent his case. The CIT(A) shall take a decision on the delay condonation application after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is directed to co-operate with the Revenue and shall not seek unnecessary adjournment. It is ordered accordingly.