CHARANJIT P. GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 25(3)(1), MUMBAI

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the CIT (A)-35, Mumbai passed in appeal No. CIT (A)-35/ITO.25 (3)1)/ITA.279/11-12 dated 12-03-2014. Assessment was framed by the ITO, Ward- 25(3) (1), Mumbai for assessment year 2009-10 vide his order dated 30-11-2011 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [referred to “the Act”].

At the outset, it is seen that the assessee has raised first issue regarding violation of natural justice for not providing proper opportunity of being heard. For this, the assessee has raised the following Ground No.1:- “The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai erred in not giving enough opportunity to the assessee/legal heir of being heard. As assessee is died on 18/02/2013, hence it was not possible to attend for hearing. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai erred in giving proper and enough opportunity of being heard.”

The assessee filed adjournment petition. On going through the order of the CIT (A), it is noticed that the CIT (A) has fixed the hearing for 12-08-2013, 13-01-2014 and 12-03-2014 but, none appeared before him. It is not clear from the order of the CIT (A) whether the notices were served on the assessee or not. Even otherwise, the order of the CIT (A) is ex-parte order and only the contention of the AO is noted. When these facts were confronted to the learned Sr. DR, he conceded that the issue can be remitted back to the file of the CIT (A) for deciding the appeal afresh. In term of the above and in the interest of justice, I remit this appeal to the file of the CIT (A) for deciding the same afresh after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee will also co-operate in the appellate proceedings. The order of the CIT (A) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the CIT (A).