SH. SHAMSHUL ISLAM SAJID,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

The assessee has questioned first appellate order on several grounds, out of which in ground nos. 1 and 2, the assessee has questioned the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the adjournment application of the assessee and dismissing the appeal in default.

In support of the ground nos. 1 and 2, the Ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in default after rejecting the request of adjournment and without considering the appeal on its merits. The ld. AR 2 Shamshul Islam Sajid submitted that the assessee has got good case on merits. The case of the assessee could not be properly represented due to some confusion between the the ld. CA who was to co-ordinate with the Ld. Authorised Representative to represent its case before the authorities below. The ld. AR, therefore, requested that the matter may be set aside to the file of the assessing officer as the assessment order was also passed ex parte u/s 144 of the Act due to lack of proper representation of the case of the assessee by the authorized counsel. He undertook that assessee will fully co-operate with the assessing authority if the opportunity is given to present its case to the assessee before the assessing officer.

Ld Sr. DR referred to first appellate order, wherein in para no. 2, ld. CIT(A) has noted the dates of hearing fixed on which the assessee either did not appear or filed adjournment application. Under that background the last adjournment application was not entertained on 20.8.2014.

Considering the above submission, we find that the ld. CIT(A) after noting several dates fixed for hearing and that the assessee had sometime did not appear and sometime moved application for adjournment, has dismissed the appeal in default without discussing it on its merits. In such a situation when the assessee was not co-operating Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decide the appeal on its merits on the basis of material available on record. Instead of Ld. CIT has simply dismissed the appeal in default.

Since the assessee as discussed above has submitted that it was due to lack of proper representation of the case of the assessee on the part of his counsel before the A.O. the case of the assessee could not be properly placed before the assessing officer, we in the interest of justice set aside the matter to the file of the AO with direction to the AO to frame the assessment afresh after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is 3 Shamshul Islam Sajid also directed to co-operate with the assessing officer so that just assessment can be framed. The ground nos. 1 and 2 are thus allowed and remaining ground no. 3 questioning the merit of addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is set aside for statistical purposes. 7. In the result appeals are partly allowed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 12/02/2016).