GITANJALI SACHDEVA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 33(2), NEW DELHI

None present on behalf of the assessee despite notifying the date of hearing.

2 ITA.No.7346/Del./2019 Smt. Gitanjali Sachdeva, New Delhi. 3. We have heard the Ld. D.R. through video conferencing and perused the findings of the authorities below.

The Ld. CIT(A) noted certain dates of hearing when assessee did not appear to argue the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) in the absence of assessee dismissed the appeal of assessee for default.

In view of the above, it is clear that the Ld. CIT(A) did not decide the appeal of assessee on merits. According to Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to mention point for determination and reasons for decision in his appellate order. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal of assessee in default only. Without deciding the appeal on merit, the impugned Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-11, New Delhi, cannot be sustained in Law. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A)- 11, New Delhi and restore the appeal of assessee to his file with a direction to re-decide the appeal of assessee on merits by giving reasons for decision and in accordance with law, by giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being

In the result, appeal of assessee allowed for statistical purposes.