Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

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

....see. 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 assessment order the AO notes that the assessee c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....econd 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 violation of natural justice and without giving p....