IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1567/DEL./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) FAB CREATIONS, VS. ADDL.CIT, RANGE 23, C 88, SHIVALIK, NEW DELHI. MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI. (PAN : AAAFF0995M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY JAIN, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI DEEPAK SEHGAL, SENIOR DR O R D E R PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM TH E ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS)-XXII, NEW DELHI DATED 14.05.2010. 2. AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE. NO NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR FIXING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SERVED ANY NOTICE OF HEARING ITA NO.1567/DEL/2012 2 OF THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS BONAFIDE LY CONSTRAINED FROM ATTENDING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A)-XXIII, NEW DELHI. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DECI DED BY THE CIT (A)-XXII, NEW DELHI. THIS MAY BE THE REASON FOR NOT ISSUING NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. HE VEHEMENTLY PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO CIT (A) FOR DECIDING AFRESH. 3. LD. DR WAS ALSO NOT HAVING ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION TO THIS PROPOSITION. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE SET ASIDE THE O RDER OF THE CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) TO DE CIDE AFRESH AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (C.M. GARG) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 23 RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XXII, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT NEW DELHI