AAYUSH GOEL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 29(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

At the outset, the Ld. A.R stated that despite the notices issued to the assessee regarding pendency of case by Ld. CIT(A), the A.R of the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) during the appeal, leading to this an ex-parte order was passed against Assessment Year: 2013-14 Aayush Goel the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. A.R prayed before the Bench that one more opportunity should be provided to the assessee to properly represent its case 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, therefore, interest of natural 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 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 supportive documents in order to substantiate her claim as and when notices will serve to the assessee, in terms of the above direction appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5.