Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Pune, dated 14.03.2024 pertaining to 2016-17 assessment year.
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) to submit that the same is an ex-parte order. He has A.Y. 2016-17 2 submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has rejected the adjournment application of the assessee without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present its case.
He has further submitted that no notice of date of hearing was served upon the assessee by the ld.CIT(A); that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer.
The ld. DR relied upon the impugned order.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We have found that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of non-compliance of the notices issued by the office of the ld. CIT(A). But there is nothing on record to prove that the notices were served upon the assessee to present his case.
Even the impugned order does not make mention of any such service on the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was not afforded proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the file is restored to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The A.Y. 2016-17 3 assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(Appeals).
The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 03.09.2024.