MARAPPA GOUNDER PERIASAMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-19(1), CHENNAI

When the stay application was taken up for hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the Ld.

CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal by merely reproducing his order for A.Y. 2014-15, rendering the order wholly erroneous. It was further pointed out that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is a verbatim copy-and- paste of the appellate order for A.Y. 2014-15, including even the statement of facts and grounds of appeal, which actually pertain to A.Y. 2014-15 and not the year under consideration, therefore the matter has to go back to Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal. On stay application, the Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee has already paid more than 20% of tax demanded.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) fairly agreed with the submissions of the Ld. A.R. that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal and simply copied and pasted order of A.Y 2014-15.

We have heard both parties. On a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned CIT(A) has passed the appellate order mindlessly, by copying and pasting the appellate order of A.Y. 2014- 15, without considering the statement of facts and grounds of appeal of relevant A.Y 2013-14. In such circumstances, no action can be taken based on such order. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to pass a fresh order for A.Y. 2013-14, after considering the correct statement of facts and grounds of appeal, and after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.