2021 (3) TMI 616

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. According to the ld. AR, the notice fixing the date of hearing was not received by the assessee so, the Ld. AR could not attend the hearing because there was no instruction from the assessee to appear for hearing. It was pointed out by the Ld. AR it came to his knowledge that the Ld. CIT(A) after fixing the hearing on 24.12.2018, 23.01.2019 and 22.02.2019 (three hearings) had hastily passed the impugned order on 25.02.2019 without service of notice. Moreover, it was brought to our notice that the AO also has saddled the entire addition after acknowledging that in compliance of his notices, Sri Dipak Tibriwal, A/R of the assessee appeared and submitted details called for. However, in the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....supported the order of AO and submitted that second opportunity should not be given to assessee before the AO. 3. Having heard both sides, we note that he Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order after fixing the appeal on three occasions. However, the assessee's case is that it did not receive the notice of hearing. It is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not said anything regarding service of notice/mode of service, whether it was served or it has returned etc. So, the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is bad since Ld. CIT(A) is duty bound to decide the appeal in accordance to section 250(6) of the Act. So, we do not countenance the action of Ld. CIT(A) to have dismissed the appeal ex parte and not on merits, which according to us is per-se in v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessment was framed on 21.12.2016). Therefore, we find that in this case the assessee did not get proper opportunity before the AO, therefore, we relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Company (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "Held, reversing the decision of the High Court, that once the Tribunal found that the Income-tax Officer had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard, that the assessee could have placed the evidence before the appellate authority or before the Tribunal was really of no consequence for it was the assessment order that counted: that order had to be made after the assessee had been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard."(em....