The AO passed the ex-parte assessment order under section 147 or 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and determined the income of the assessee at Rs.15,01,500 vide Order.
The assessee challenged the addition before the CIT(A) and various grounds of appeal. The CIT(A), however, noted that appeal is filed online.
However, only Form No.35 is available on the website of the Department. The assessee has not filed a copy of the demand notice and fees for filing of the appeal.
The Counsel for Assessee requested for adjournment which was rejected. The CIT(A) accordingly dismissed the appeal of assessee as being not admitted on account of the reasons noted above.
The Counsel for the Assessee contended that assessee has uploaded the demand notice as well as paid the fees for filing of the appeal which have not been taken into consideration and that only one notice was issued for which date assessee sought adjournment which was also rejected.
The coram consists of B.R.R. Kumar and Bhavesh Saini noted that no notice has been given to the assessee to make rectification to the appeal paper, if any arise on account of non-down loading the demand notice or fees for filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Only one notice was given to the assessee for which date Counsel for Assessee sought adjournment which was rejected. It would show that CIT(A) passed the Order hurriedly even without giving any meaningful, reasonable, opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The ITAT set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal of assessee to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to re-decide the appeal of assessee as per Law, by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view the Judgment