SINGDON RONGHANG,ASSAM vs. ITO WARD 2, DIMAPUR, DIMAPUR

At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 170 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record,

After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record before, we observe that in this case the assessment was framed u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Act when the assessee failed to respond on the dates fixed for hearing by the ld. AO. Similarly, before the ld. CIT (A), there was no representation on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the ld. CIT (A) passed an ex- parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee. However, in our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) is duty bound to set out the point of determination and his decision thereon and the reason for taking the said decision as mandated by the provision of section 250(6) of the Act which apparently has not been done by the appellate authority. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit and proper to restore the issue back to the file of the CIT (A) so that the facts could be appreciated in correct perspective and order is passed accordingly de novo. Accordingly, we restore the issue to the file of the CIT (A) with a direction to decide de novo after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee as well.