USHA ASHOK KHANNA,MUMBAI vs. CIT 31, MUMBAI

At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee briefly narrated the facts of the case and submitted that this is a case where the CIT (A) completed first appellate proceedings ex-parte on 31.10.2014. Tracing the events, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee received telephonic information for appearance on 16.10.2014 and promised to send a proper hearing notice, which was never received. Within two weeks from that event, CIT (A) concluded the appellate proceedings and passed the impugned order without granting an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. On these facts, assessee raised ground no.1 underlining the „violation of principles of natural justice‟.

After hearing both the parties, I find, the facts narrated above confirm such violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to set aside the order of the CIT (A) and remand the matter to his file for fresh adjudication and for passing a speaking order in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the statute u/s 250(6) of the Act. Assessee shall be granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard as per the set principles of natural justice. I order accordingly.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2016. (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक 30.6.2016 व.नन.स./ OKK , Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अऩीराथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 4. ववबागीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR,

ITAT, Mumbai गार्ड पाईर / Guard file. 6. सत्मावऩत प्रनत //// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.