Assessee should not suffer on account of non-appearance of the Counsel, says ITAT

Last updated: 09 February 2021

Court :
ITAT New Delhi

Brief :
This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-36, New Delhi, Dated 26.07.2019, for the A.Y. 2007-2008.

Citation :
ITA.No.7054/Del./2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES “SMC-1” : DELHI

BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA.No.7054/Del./2019
Assessment Year 2007-2008

Shri Naveen Kumar Jain,
L/H of Shri Anand Prakash
Jain, Prop. Naveen Jain
Metal Udyog, 3721, Gali
Barna, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
PIN – 110 006
PAN AADPJ8047R
(Appellant)

[vs.

The Income Tax Officer,
Ward – 63 (2),
New Delhi.
(Respondent)

For Assessee : Ms. Mansi Jain, C.A.
For Revenue : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. D.R.

Date of Hearing : 03.02.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 03.02.2021

ORDER

PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.

This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-36, New Delhi, Dated 26.07.2019, for the A.Y. 2007-2008.

2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties through video conferencing and perused the findings of the authorities below.

3. In this case the A.O. passed the re-assessment order under section 143(3)/147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, Dated 25.03.2015 making addition of Rs.36,17,208/- on account of purchases. The Ld. CIT(A) issued various notices to the assessee for hearing of the appeal, but, the assessee despite seeking adjournment did not avail the opportunity of being heard. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, dismissed the appeal of assessee for default.

To know more in details find the attachment file