1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI C BEN CH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL M EMBER ITA NO. 4242/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2012-13] M/S GLOBE AGENCIES VS. THE A.C .I.T 382, SFS FLATS, MAYUR VIHAR CIRCLE 60(1) NEW DELHI NEW DELHI PAN: AAAFG 7246 A (APPLICANT) ( RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.K. GAU R, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.N. MEENA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 10.12.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.12.2019 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS] - 19, NEW DELH I DATED 17.05.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2 2. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE AS SESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE EX PARTE ORDER FRAME D U/S 144 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT' ] BY AN EX PARTE ORDER. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT THE COUNSEL WHO WAS ENGAGED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ATTEND T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DID NOT ATTEND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED EX PA RTE ORDER U/S 144 OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT ANOTHER ADVOCATE WHO WAS ENGAGED TO ATTEND THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO DID NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY A LSO FRAMED AN EX PARTE ORDER AND UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT. 5. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E THAT IF ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO DEFEND THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY STATED THAT BO TH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF B EING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE ASSESSEE CHOSE NOT TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDING S. THEREFORE, NO SECOND INNINGS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 3 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT NONE ATTENDED THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY. THE ASSESSEE WAS HEAVILY RELYING UPON THE COUNSEL ENGAGED BY HIM, YE T, FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THE COUNSEL, PROCEEDINGS REMAINED UNATTEND ED. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE DEEM IT FIT T O RESTORE THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS DIR ECTED TO ATTEND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND COMPLY WITH THE QUERIES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DE CIDE THE ISSUES AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 4242/DEL/2016 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11. 12.2019. SD/- SD/- [ SUCHITRA KAMBLE ] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 11 TH DECEMBER, 2019 VL/ 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS /PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P S/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER