SAMIR GHOSH,BARPETA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BARPETA ROAD & TPS, BARPETA

Both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 & 2012- 13 are directed against the separate orders both dt. 30-10-2019 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [ hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Act’] by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals [ in short, hereafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A), Guwahati-2, Guwahati. 1. & 28/Gau/2020 AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 Samir Ghosh .

When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of records shows that both ld. CIT(A)’s order are ex parte. The assessee was provided opportunity to appear on fourth occasions, but the assessee failed to appear and file necessary submissions. The ld. CIT(A) accordingly proceeded to pass ex parte order, but summarily dismissed the appeals of the assessee without giving any finding on merits of the case. The ld. DR has no objection if the issue is restored to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case and observing that the order(s) of the ld. CIT(A) is non-speaking restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal(s) on merits to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and to pass a speaking order. We also direct the assessee to be attentive to the notice of hearing issued by the ld. CIT(A) and to furnish all necessary details on the very first day of hearing and should not take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. The ld. CIT(A) would provide assessee with reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee in appeal number(s) for the AY 2011-12 and ITA No. 28/Gau/2020 for the AY 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee (ITA Nos. 27/Gau/2020 & 28/Gau/2020 for the AYs. 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes.