Sandeep, Matershree Niwas V. Income Tax Officer , Ward Shimla

ITA 296/CHANDI/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 129 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0141 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2024

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अधकरण,चडीगढ़ यायपीठ, चडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B” CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No 296/CHD/2024 नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sandeep, Matershree Niwas, Lower Cemetery, Sanjauli, Shimla. Vs The ITO, Ward, Shimla. थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ECBPS3165M अपीलाथ/Appellant यथ/Respondent नधारती क ओर से/Assessee by: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr.Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, Advocate राजव क ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR स ु नवाई क तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26.08.2024 उदघोषणा क तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 03.09.2024 HYBRID HEARING आदेश/Order PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Pune, dated 14.03.2024 pertaining to 2016-17 assessment year. 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) to submit that the same is an ex-parte order. He has ITA No.296/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 2 submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has rejected the adjournment application of the assessee without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present its case. He has further submitted that no notice of date of hearing was served upon the assessee by the ld.CIT(A); that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 4. The ld. DR relied upon the impugned order. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We have found that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of non-compliance of the notices issued by the office of the ld. CIT(A). But there is nothing on record to prove that the notices were served upon the assessee to present his case. Even the impugned order does not make mention of any such service on the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was not afforded proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the file is restored to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ITA No.296/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 3 assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(Appeals). 6. The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 03.09.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (A.D.JAIN ) ACCOUNTANTMEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” आदेश क त(ल)प अ*े)षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ/ The Appellant 2. यथ/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआय ु +त/ CIT 4. )वभागीय तन.ध, आयकर अपील"य आ.धकरण, च0डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाडफाईल/ Guard File आदेशान ु सार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar