PANCHABHAI B. CHAUDHARI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that learned CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order on the reasoning that the assessee failed to appear on the date of hearing. He invited my attention to page Nos. 20 & 21 of the paper book and submitted that notice of hearing sent by learned CIT(A) by registered post has been returned back by the postal authorities with the noting that “the addressee has left”. He submitted that the assessee is residing in the same address and even received the order passed by Ld CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee did not appear before Ld CIT(A), since he did not receive the notice. He submitted that the assessee has also obtained a certificate from the Sub-Post Mater, wherein the Sub-Post Master has stated that the assessee is residing at the same address and inadvertently delivery postman has returned the tapal. Accordingly, learned AR submitted that there

Learned Departmental Representative did not controvert the factual aspects presented by learned AR.

Having heard the rival submissions, I am of the view that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee for not appearing before learned CIT(A), and in the interest of natural justice, assessee should be provided a proper opportunity to present his case before learned CIT(A). Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by learned CIT(A) and restore all the matters to his file with the direction to examine the same afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.