SHRI DASARATHSINH GHANSHYAMSINH CHUDASAMA,BHAVNAGAR vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHAVNAGAR

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.R, Shri L. P. Jain, Sr. D.R

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 16.07.2018 arising in the assessment order dated 27.11.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2015-16.

2. The assessee in the captioned appeal has raised several grounds assailing the order of the CIT(A) for dismissal of the appeal of the [Shri Dasarathsinh G. Chudasama vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 2 - assessee. However, it is noticed that one of the substantive grounds raised by the assessee whereby the assessee seeks to impugn the order of the CIT(A) towards alleged violation of principles of natural justice and disposal of first appellate order ex parte.

3. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned AR for the assessee at the outset submitted that the appeal filed before the CIT(A) by the assessee could not be attended owing to dispute between the Chartered Accountant and the assessee and consequently, the assessee could not attend before the CIT(A). It was submitted that by non- representations before the CIT(A), the assessee does not stand to any benefit at all and thus, nonattendance should not be presumed to have occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence or on account of malafides. It was further pointed out that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee summarily for want of prosecution. It was contended that while dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine, the CIT(A) has not rendered any decisions on merits as obligated under s.250(6) of the Act. It was thus urged that the order of the CIT(A) suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and hence requires to be set aside for fresh adjudication on merits.

4. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the CIT(A) .

5. We have considered the rival submissions. We straightway refer to Section 250(6) of the Act which enjoins that the CIT(A) shall state the points for determination before it and the decision shall be rendered on such points alongwith reasons for the decision. It was thus incumbent upon the CIT(A) to deal with the grounds on merits even in an ex parte order. A bare glance of the order of the CIT(A) shows that CIT(A) has not addressed itself on the various points placed for its determination at all and dismissed the appeal of assessee for default in appearance. Needless to say, the CIT(A) plays role of both adjudicating authority as [Shri Dasarathsinh G. Chudasama vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 3 - well as appellate authority. Thus, the CIT(A) could not have shunned the appeal for non-compliance without addressing the issue on merits.

6. In the totality of circumstances, we consider it just and expedient to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) in the larger interest of justice with a view to enable the assessee to avail proper opportunity for disposal of appeal by the CIT(A) on various points. Needless to say, the assessee shall extend full co-operation to the CIT(A) without any demur, failing which, the CIT(A) shall at liberty to conclude the appellate proceedings in accordance with law. Hence, the order of the CIT(A) appealed against, is set aside and all the issues raised in the impugned appeal are restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 29/01/2020

Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 29/01/2020 True Copy S. K. SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद �यायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

Shri Dasarathsinh Deputy Commissioner of बनाम/ Ghanshyamsinh Income Tax Vs. Chudasama Circle-1, Bhavnagar A-56, Marketing Yard, Chitra, Bhavnagar �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AGBPC3921H .. (अपीलाथ� /Appellant) (��यथ� / Respondent)

अपीलाथ� ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Biren Shah, A.R. ��यथ� क� ओर से / Shri L. P. Jain, Sr. D.R. Respondent by : सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of 27/01/2020 Hearing घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of 29/01/2020 Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM:

The assessee in the captioned appeal has raised several grounds assailing the order of the CIT(A) for dismissal of the appeal of the [Shri Dasarathsinh G. Chudasama vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 2 - assessee. However, it is noticed that one of the substantive grounds raised by the assessee whereby the assessee seeks to impugn the order of the CIT(A) towards alleged violation of principles of natural justice and disposal of first appellate order ex parte.

When the matter was called for hearing, the learned AR for the assessee at the outset submitted that the appeal filed before the CIT(A) by the assessee could not be attended owing to dispute between the Chartered Accountant and the assessee and consequently, the assessee could not attend before the CIT(A). It was submitted that by non- representations before the CIT(A), the assessee does not stand to any benefit at all and thus, nonattendance should not be presumed to have occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence or on account of malafides. It was further pointed out that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee summarily for want of prosecution. It was contended that while dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine, the CIT(A) has not rendered any decisions on merits as obligated under s.250(6) of the Act. It was thus urged that the order of the CIT(A) suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and hence requires to be set aside for fresh adjudication on merits.

The learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the CIT(A) .

We have considered the rival submissions. We straightway refer to Section 250(6) of the Act which enjoins that the CIT(A) shall state the points for determination before it and the decision shall be rendered on such points alongwith reasons for the decision. It was thus incumbent upon the CIT(A) to deal with the grounds on merits even in an ex parte order. A bare glance of the order of the CIT(A) shows that CIT(A) has not addressed itself on the various points placed for its determination at all and dismissed the appeal of assessee for default in appearance. Needless to say, the CIT(A) plays role of both adjudicating authority as [Shri Dasarathsinh G. Chudasama vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2015-16 - 3 - well as appellate authority. Thus, the CIT(A) could not have shunned the appeal for non-compliance without addressing the issue on merits.

In the totality of circumstances, we consider it just and expedient to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) in the larger interest of justice with a view to enable the assessee to avail proper opportunity for disposal of appeal by the CIT(A) on various points. Needless to say, the assessee shall extend full co-operation to the CIT(A) without any demur, failing which, the CIT(A) shall at liberty to conclude the appellate proceedings in accordance with law. Hence, the order of the CIT(A) appealed against, is set aside and all the issues raised in the impugned appeal are restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 29/01/2020

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।

SHRI DASARATHSINH GHANSHYAMSINH CHUDASAMA,BHAVNAGAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHAVNAGAR