VIRJIBHAI NATHUBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(10),, AHMEDABAD

In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has pleaded that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex parte for want of prosecution.

With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that the ld.CIT(A) has fixed the hearing of the appeal on three-four occasions, but no-one appeared on behalf of the assessee, and therefore, she dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. In this connection, it is pertinent to take note of sub- section (6) of section 250 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 the issues are remitted back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.