MR. DHAKSHINAMURTHY RAJENDRAN,GUDIYATTAM vs. ITO, WARD-2,, TIRUVANNAMALAI

At the outset, we note that this appeal was filed with a delay of 177 days. On perusal of the petition filed for condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit, submissions of the Ld. AR and Ld. DR, we find the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide, which prevented him in filing the and admits the appeal for adjudication.

At the outset, Ld.AR for the assessee pointed out that Ld.CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order without going into merits of grounds raised by the assessee and therefore, he prayed that one more opportunity before the first appellate authority may be granted.

Per contra, the ld. DR does not want to give one more innings to the assessee.

Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is an exparte order without hearing the assessee and without going into the merits of the case. Hence, we do not countenance such an action of the Ld. CIT(A) being in violation of natural justice and therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore back to the Ld. CIT(A) this appeal with a direction to adjudicate the grounds of appeal in accordance with sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [herein after “Act”]. The Ld. AR has undertaken to file relevant documents to substantiate the grounds of appeal. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) is

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 06th December, 2024 at Chennai.