UPENDRA SINGH,SASARAM vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-1, GAYA

At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that appeal was decided by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte and no notice was issued to the assessee. The alleged notices mentioned in the impugned order were never served upon the assessee. Therefore, the assessee could not know about the status of his appeal and, therefore, could not file submission.

With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, which is contrary to the mandate given in section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Sub-section 6 of section 250 contemplates that ld. CIT(Appeals) would state the points in dispute and thereafter record reasons on those points. But in the present case, ld. CIT(Appeal) did not follow this mandatory procedure and dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and restore all these issues to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merit. The ld. CIT(Appeals) shall decide the issues after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.09.2024.