HARI OM CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CPC TDS, UTTAR PRADESH

This is the case where the assessee sought adjournment and filed a letter, dated 20.7.2016, in this regard and none appeared on behalf of the assessee to explain the reasons for adjournment. On the other hand, Ld DR submitted that this is the case where the assessee wants an opportunity of fair hearing of the CIT (A) and cited Ground no.1 in this regard. Further, Ld DR for the Revenue brought our attention to the order of the CIT (A) and mentioned that the CIT (A) adjudicated this appeal ex-parte and the same is evident from item no.8 of first page of the CIT (A)’s order.

After hearing the Ld DR and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities in general and page 1 of the CIT (A)’s order in particular, we find, it is a fit case for rejecting the request for adjournment. We order accordingly and remand the issue raised before us to the file of the CIT (A). CIT (A) is directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the set principles of natural justice. CIT (A) is further directed to adjudicate the issue on merits and pass a speaking order strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th July, 2016. (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक 25.07.2016 व.नन.स./ OKK , Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. 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 ////