B.K.JENA & ASSOCIATES ,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. ITO, PARADEEP WARD, PARADEEP

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.182/CTK/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. M/s. B.K.jena B.K.jena & & Associates, Vs. ITO, Paradeep Ward, Paradeep. ITO, Paradeep Ward, Paradeep. Rangiagarh, Paradeep. Rangiagarh, Paradeep. PAN/GIR No. No.AAGFB 4157 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty, P.R.Mohanty, Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR Subhendu Dutta, DR Date of Hearing : 26/07/ 201 / 2019 Date of Pronouncement : 26/0 07/ 2019 O R D E R

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-Cuttack dated dated 30.8.2017 for the assessment year 201 assessment year 2012-13. 2. Heard the rival submissions and perused Heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. the record of the case. I find that the CIT(A) has allowed several opportunities to the assessee as is find that the CIT(A) has allowed several opportunities to the assessee as is find that the CIT(A) has allowed several opportunities to the assessee as is evident from the impugned order but the assessee failed to appear before evident from the impugned order but the assessee failed to appear before evident from the impugned order but the assessee failed to appear before him. Ld A.R. Ld A.R. prayed that one more opportunity be allowed to the assessee prayed that one more opportunity be allowed to the assessee to putforth his grievance before the CIT(A). Ld D.R. has no objection to the tforth his grievance before the CIT(A). Ld D.R. has no objection to the tforth his grievance before the CIT(A). Ld D.R. has no objection to the submission of ld A.R. of the assessee. submission of ld A.R. of the assessee. 3. The ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd vs. The ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd vs. The ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd vs. JCIT (2000) 74 ITD 339 (Ahd) has held that the provisions of section 250(6) JCIT (2000) 74 ITD 339 (Ahd) has held that the provisions of section 250(6) JCIT (2000) 74 ITD 339 (Ahd) has held that the provisions of section 250(6) are mandatory and it is obligatory for Commissioner(Appeals) to pass a are mandatory and it is obligatory for Commissioner(Appeals) to pass a are mandatory and it is obligatory for Commissioner(Appeals) to pass a speaking order stating points raised in appeals, his decision thereon and speaking order stating points raised in appeals, his decision thereon and speaking order stating points raised in appeals, his decision thereon and

P a g e 1 | 3

ITA No.182/CTK/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13

reasons for such decisions. The provisions of section 250(6) provides that the appellate order of Commissioner (A) are to state the points arising in the appeal, the decision of the authority thereon and the reasons for such decision. The underlying rationale of the provision is that such orders are subject to further appeal to the Tribunal. Speaking order would obviously enable a party to know precise points decided in his favour or against him. Absence of the formulation of the point for decision for want of clarity in a decision undoubtedly puts a party in quandary. In the instant case, vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal without considering the facts and grounds raised by the assessee following the decision of ITAT Delhi in the case of Multiplan (India)Ltd. (supra), I am of the opinion that the CIT (A) has no power to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, reliance placed by the CIT (A) in the case of Multiplan (supra) is misconceived. In view of this and following the decision of the ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd (supra), I set aside the order of the CIT (A) and restore the appeal to his file and direct him to dispose of the appeal of the assessee afresh with a speaking order after allowing proper opportunity in accordance with law. 4. Since I have remitted the matter to the file of the CIT (A) for deciding afresh, there is no necessity to decide the appeal on merits. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 26/07/2019. Sd/- (Chandra Mohan Garg) JUDICIALMEMBER Cuttack; Dated 26 /07/209

P a g e 2 | 3

ITA No.182/CTK/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13

B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : M/s. B.K.jena & Associates, Rangiagarh, Paradeep 2. The respondent: ITO, Paradeep Ward, Paradeep. 3. The CIT(A)- Cuttack 4. Pr.CIT- Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// By order

Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 3 | 3