RAJ KUMAR SINGHVI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-41(1), KOL, KOLKATA

At the outset itself, the ld. AR took our attention to ground no.1 which is against the order of ld. CIT(A) passing an exparte order. The ld. AR took our attention to the impugned order and we note that the order is an exparte order. From a perusal of the order we find that initially the case was fixed on 26.07.2013 and thereafter on 07.08.2013. The ld. CIT(A) notes that notice was returned undelivered with the remark “left” on the envelope. Thereafter the ld. CIT(A) again re-fixed the matter on 18.09.2013 and thereafter on 20.09.2013 and the ld. CIT(A) notes that the notice was received by the ld. AR of the appellant. However, he notes that thereafter none appeared. So the ld. CIT(A) again fixed the matter on 19.11.2013 and since nobody appeared on that date and no submission was filed he dismissed the appeal for non prosecution. The ld. AR contended that the assessee was not in receipt of the notice and Raj Kumar Singhvi A.Yr.2006-07 therefore was not able to appear before the ld. CIT(A). It was brought to our notice that only the notice dated 19.11.2013 was received by the ld. AR of the appellant. However, since on the very next date of hearing the ld. AR could not attend before ld CIT(A) the assessee should not be penalised. We find force in the contention of the ld. AR that the assessee should not be penalized if for any reason the AR could not appear before the ld. CIT(A). We are inclined to give an opportunity to the assessee to plead his case before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of CIT(A) with the direction to decide the matter afresh on merits by a speaking order. The assessee is also directed to promptly appear and cooperate with the proceedings and furnish all records/documents to substantiate his appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 30.12.2016.