RAM REDDY JAKKIDI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-11(2), HYDERABAD

At the outset learned AR submits that the learned CIT(A) recorded that so many notices were issued and because of the nonappearance of the assessee, he proceeded ex parte and dismissed the appeal in limine. It is the submission of the learned AR that the assessee missed to respond to the notices issued by the learned CIT(A) due to the fact that the notices were in fact sent to the erstwhile Chartered Accountant of the assessee, which has not been brought to the notice of the assessee or his present counsel. Learned AR further submitted that there is no malafide intention for his non-appearance and non-compliance and therefore prayed for an opportunity of being heard before the learned CIT(A) in the interest of justice.

Though the learned DR opposed the prayer made on behalf of the assessee, he could not contradict any of the specific facts pleaded by the assessee.

On a careful consideration of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that it is not proper to hold the assessee responsible for not furnishing any specific information necessary for adjudication of the matter, because the assessee was not put on notice of the need of any specific material. In view of the factual situation obtaining in this case, it would be in the interest of justice to provide an opportunity by allowing the assessee to produce the documents before the learned CIT(A). The highest that would happen by such course is that the assessee’s case could be decided on merits. When the technicalities are pitted against the delivery of substantial justice, the former will give way to the later. With this view of the matter, we allow the appeal and restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) will consider the documents and take a view according to law.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 9th October, 2024.