SMT. MAYA RASTOGI,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

We thus decided to adjudicate upon ground nos. 1 and 2 of the appeals, first.

In support of the above grounds the ld. AR submitted that it was a high pitched assessment which was questioned before the Ld. CIT(A) and during the course of hearing of the appeals, the ld. Counsel of the assessee had moved adjournment application on 14.10.2014 stating therein that he would not be able to attend hearing on 16.10.2014. Rejecting the said application without appreciating that some proper reason was there, the ld. CIT(A) has dismiss the appeals in default without discussing merits of the appeals. Thus, it was violation of principle of natural justice. 5. The Ld. Sr. DR on the other hand pointed out that despite several opportunities afforded by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not bother to co- operate in the proceedings and thus ld. CIT(A) was having no option but to dismiss the appeals. 6. Considering the above submissions we find that even if the assessee was not co-operating with the first appellate authority, the first appellate authority was supposed to dispose off the appeals on the basis of materials available on record, instead the ld. CIT(A) has simply dismissed the appeals in default after noting certain dates i.e. 2.9.2014 when the appeals were fixed as per notice dated 7.8.2014 and thereafter on 16.10.2014 when the counsel for the assessee on 14.10.2014 had made adjournment application showing his difficulty to attend the hearing fixed on 16.10.2014. The ld. CIT(A) rejected this application and disposed off the appeals by dismissing the same in default. We thus in the interest of justice set aside the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to co-operative with -72/Del/2014 3 Maya Rastogi the first appellate authority in disposal of the appeals. The ground nos. 1 and 2 are thus allowed and remaining grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result appeals are partly allowed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 12/02/2016).