RASHIDA AHMEDAHUSAIN MOMIN,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the first ground of appeal, grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee exparte for want of prosecution.

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 notice to the assessee for arguing the appeal on three occasions, but on each occasion no one had appeared, and accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) after putting reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chemipol Vs. Union of India (Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009) has observed that every judicial and quasi-judicial authority is entitled to dismiss the case before him on account of want of prosecution. 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

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