SUJATA BANIK, BONGAON,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. I.T.O., WARD - 49(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

At the outset, the Ld. A.R stated that despite the notices were served upon the assessee from the ends of Ld. CIT(A) regarding the pendency of the case. However, the Ld. A.R did not turn up before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed necessary representation in Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sujata Banik order to substantiate the claim of the assessee, leading to this, the impugned order was passed ex-parte against the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. A.R of the assessee stated before the Bench that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee so that the assessee can represent its case properly before the Ld. CIT(A).

On the other hand, the Ld. D.R objected to such prayer made by the Ld. A.R before the Bench.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, we find that although the notices were issued from the Ld. CIT(A), however, due to non-appearance of assessee, the case was heard ex-parte against the assessee. We, considering the facts of the case, interest of justice and fair play to the parties it is necessary to remand back to the whole issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to re-examine the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed with necessary documents in order to substantiate her claim as and when notices will serve to the assessee in terms of the above direction appeal of assessee allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5.