BHUPATBHAI KESHUBHAI GOHEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In ground no.1 and 2, the assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution without adjudicating each ground on merit.

With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. The assessee has filed an application for listing the appeal out-of-turn hearing. While hearing the 2 application we find that appeal of the assessee was dismissed for want of prosecution. Therefore, we confronted both the parties as to why this appeal be not taken for hearing on merit itself. Both the ld.representatives did not object for taking up the appeal for hearing. A perusal of order of the ld.CIT(A) would show that appeal was listed on four occasions, but the assessee did not appear. The ld.CIT(A) thereafter dismissed the appeal in default for want of prosecution.

Sub-section (6) of section 250 has a direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, it is pertinent to take note of this clause which reads as under:

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. 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 her conclusions on those points. The ld.CIT(A) failed to adhere the mandatory procedure, hence her order is not sustainable. We allow this appeal of the assessee and set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A). All issues are remitted back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Needless to say, during the set aside proceedings, the assessee shall not indulge in dilatory tactics as a strategy to prolong the proceedings

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