MANJU GARG,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(4), MEERUT

There is a delay of 3 months. The assessee has filed an application along with an affidavit to substantiate the fact that the assessee is a 75 year-old senior Citizen and not acquainted with income tax proceedings and hence not aware of the notices received and also does not have for mistake of counsel, the litigant could not be held responsible. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied on various case laws to fortify his stand.

Having perused the affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the affidavit to be plausible. We, therefore, condone the delay.

At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment order was made ex-parte and the ld. CIT(A) has followed suit by confirming the action of the Assessing Officer without providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. counsel for the assessee therefore, prayed that the order may be set aside for fresh hearing.

Per contra, the ld DR fairly conceded that the lower authorities have passed ex-parte order.

We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the materials on record. In the above factual matrix of the instant case, taking into the seniority of the assessee, we are of the considered view that the assessee ought to have been given sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem

The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to provide necessary information/documents as required by the authorities. allowed for statistical purposes.