RAGHU SURAPUDI,SPSRNELLORE vs. ITO., WARD-1, GUDUR

At the outset, it is seen that an adjournment petition have been filed by the assessee. However, we found from the records that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non prosecution and therefore the case of the assessee could not be heard on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence without considering the adjournment petition filed by the assessee, the present matter is being heard in absence of the assessee.

Ld. DR placed heavy reliance on the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that sufficient opportunity has already been given by the authorities, but the assessee failed to avail the same. Therefore he requested to upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

We have heard the Ld. DR and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made. It could be seen from the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) that in spite of many opportunities given, the assessee failed to substantiate her case by providing necessary documentary evidence, which resulted in passing the orders without consideration thereof. Hence the case of the assessee has not been heard on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). It is a fact that the assessee does not stand to gain by not prosecuting her case on merits. In the interest of natural justice, we are of the opinion that the case must be decided on merits and therefore we provide one last opportunity to the assessee to produce all the necessary documentary evidence in support of her contentions before the Ld. CIT(A) and get the matter disposed of on merits. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for passing a fresh order on merits after affording the opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Grounds of appeal are answered accordingly.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.