KHUSBOO,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW5(1), CHENNAI

The assessee is an individual filed her return of income for AY 2017-18 on 26.02.2018, admitting an income of Rs.2,85,350/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and for the reason cash deposit during demonetization period and concluded the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 09.12.2019. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A).

The ld.CIT(A) had issued six notices affording opportunities to the assessee to appear for hearing. However, the assessee had not responded. Thus, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by passing an exparte order dated 21.03.2024. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is before us.

The Ld. A.R stated that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal in limine for non-prosecution and prayed for remanding the matter back to the ld.CIT(A) .

On the other hand, the Ld. DR argued that the assessee has not made any submissions, despite of sufficient opportunities provided to the assessee. :- 3 -:

We have heard both the parties and gone through the order of the ld.CIT(A). It is noted that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The Ld. A.R submitted that three notices were issued during covid pandemic period, which could not be complied. We are of the opinion that keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. We also direct the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.