MANJEET SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. CIT-RANGE 3, INDORE

Facts of the case in brief are that an assessment order dated 31.3.2014 was passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer by making various additions. These additions were challenged by the assessee before the first appellate authority. However, despite giving various opportunities, the assessee did not appear during the appellate proceedings, and in the ex parte proceedings, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order of the AO. The assessee got aggrieved, and now came before the Tribunal in second appeal.

With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the CIT(A)’s order would indicate that the ld.CIT(A) has issued notices to the assessee for arguing the appeal on various occasions as mentioned by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order, but the assessee did not avail the same, and accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) after putting reliance upon the decision in the case of P.N. Balasubramanium (A) 112 ITR 512 held that since the assessee has not availed opportunities given, he is not entitled for any natural justice. He dismissed appeal of the assessee. In this connection, it is pertinent to take note of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which reads as under: “6) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”

On perusal of section would indicate that the ld.CIT(A) was required to formulate points in dispute, and thereafter record reasons on such points. No doubt the ld.CIT(A) has given number of opportunities to the assessee to attend the hearing, and the assessee did not avail and remained absent, which ipso facto would not empower the ld.CIT(A) to pass an ex parte order without going to the merit of the cases and without making a speaking order, because, rationale for 3 passing a speaking order based on the material available on record is that, such order is subject to further appeal, and such order would enable not only the litigant and the appellate authority to know the exact point of dispute for adjudication. In the instant case, even if the assessee did not participate, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have gone through the assessment record and thereafter formed the point in dispute, and should have recorded reasons in support of his conclusions on those points. The ld.CIT(A) failed to adhere the mandatory procedure, hence his order is not sustainable. We allow this preliminary ground of appeal and set aside the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to mention here, the assessee shall cooperate in the set aside appellate proceeding, and would not indulge in unnecessary delay tactics.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Court on _14th ___July, 2021 at Indore. (MANISH BORAD) VICE-PRESIDENT Indore, Dated 14 /07/2021 आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु"त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु"त(अपील) / The CIT(A)

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण / DR, ITAT, 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.