Assessee directed to be more diligent and to file all documents before Ld. CIT(A) to pursue the appeal as per law.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B(SMC)” BENCH: KOLKATA

[Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM]

I.T.A. No. 642/Kol/2020
Assessment Year: 2015-16

Mahesh Kumar Sharma
(PAN: AWHPS 3736 N)
Appellant 

Vs. 

ITO, Ward-23(3), Hooghly
Respondent

Date of Hearing (Virtual) 15.02.2021
Date of Pronouncement 19.02.2021

For the Appellant None
For the Respondent Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, Sr. DR

ORDER

 This is an appeal preferred by the Assessee against the order of Ld.CIT(A)-6, Kolkata, dated 22.10.2018 for A.Y. 2015-16.

2. I note that assessee’s appeal is delayed by 732 days and the assessee has filed the condonation application. After going through the reasons, I am inclined to condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal of the assessee.

3. Though none appeared for the assessee from the grounds of appeal I note that the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in passing an ex-parte order without looking into the merits of the action of the AO. It is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has stated that the notice u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act) fixing the case and notes that hearing notice was issued to the address of the appellant (assessee) as found in Form No. 35 however according to him none appeared on the date of hearing (however date of first hearing  not mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A) ). Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) notes that he again fixed the matter on 26.09.2018 and 11.10.2018. Thereafter he notes that since none appeared on these dates and none bothered to send any letter for adjournment, he was pleased to dismiss the appeal of the assessee without going into the merits of the case. I do not countenance this action of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have disposed of the appeal as per Sub-Section (6) of Section 250 of the Act. The Section 250(6) of the Act reads as under:

To know more in details find the attachment file