M/S SURESH KUMAR,KATHUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , KATHUA

At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has requested for condonation of short delay of 65 days in filing the appeal. Delay condoned and appeal admitted on merits. The counsel argued that the ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in passing the impugned order ex-parte qua the assessee without granting an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass the ex-parte order without deciding the appeal on the merits of the case. He prayed that the order may be remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

The ld. DR although stand by the impugned order but he has no objection to the request of the appellant on account of principles of natural justice.

Having heard, both the sides and perusal of the impugned order, we found that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order in summary manner mentioning that the non-compliance to the two notices issued shows that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. It is evident from the impugned order that the appellant-assessee has been Suresh Kumar v. ITO denied an adequate opportunity of being heard while deciding its appeal ex-parte in summary manner. In our view, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is in gross violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, we deem it fit to remand back the case to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to pass the order afresh after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee on the merits of the case. The assessee is directed to co-operate in the appellate proceedings for the ld. CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.