IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA no. 1899/Del/2015
Asstt. Yrs: 2011-12

Kanta Khanna ( Appellant ) vs ACIT (Respondent)
Date of hearing : 23/07/2015
Date of order : 09/09/2015

ORDER

PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M..

This appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-41, New Delhi dated 19-01-2015 passed in appeal no. 550/14-15, relating to A.Y. 2011-12.

2. The assessee has raised as many as 11 grounds of appeal. Ground no. 2 reads as under:

“That the CIT(Appeal) has grossly erred on facts and in law in passing the impugned order without giving a sufficient and a proper opportunity to the assessee to be heard. The impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice.”

3. In this case the CIT(A) proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex parte, qua the assessee, by observing as under:

3. It is observed that despite repeated notices fixing the case for hearings in the appeal matter, the appellant has failed to appear on the given dates. Instead of providing details/submissions the appellant has taken adjournments, as enumerated above. Also instead of appearing on the adjourned dates, the appellant has continued to seek further adjournments. This clearly shows that the appellant does not have any intention of making an appearance and defending its case. It is taking advantage of the revenue's goodwill of providing opportunity to the appellant for preparing its case. It would also not be incorrect to observe that the appellant appears to be habitual in non appearance on given dates of hearings.

4. Therefore, it gives an impression that the assessee is not interested in pressing its appeal. It is noted that it has become a fashion in present times that appellant often flies appeal merely to look the revenue or to keep the issues alive in appeal. 'I therefore, have no option but to dismiss the appeal preferred by the assessee, on account of non appearance, My decision is also corroborated by the decision in the following cases.

CIT V. Multiplan (India) (P) ltd. (1991} 38lTD 320 {Del) Estate of Late Tukeji Rao Holkar CWT (1997) 2231TR 480 (M P)”

4. Having heard the submissions of both the parties, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned CIT(Appeals) cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Even if the CIT(A) wanted to dispose of the appeal, ex parte, qua the assessee, even then, being first appellate authority, he was duty bound to dispose of the issues raised before him on merits. Therefore, order of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored back to him with the direction to pass a reasoned order, on the grounds of appeal raised before him, in accordance with law, of course, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly.

5. In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes only. Order pronounced in open court on 09/09/2015.

Sd/-
(S.V. MEHROTRA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 09/09/2015.