AMUDHA THRUMANA MANDAPAM P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai, in 17/CIT(A)-4/AY: 2013-14 dated 25.03.2019. The assessment was framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Cirlce-1(1), Chennai, for the AY 2013-14vide his order dated 31.03.2016, u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”).

At the outset, it is noticed that the appellate order of the Ld.CIT(A) is exparte and sought to be decided for default on the part of the assessee as not to represent. The Ld.CIT(A) has not spoken a word about merits of the case. He has simply dismissed exparte. When these facts confronted to the ld.Sr.DR, he could not controvert to the above facet situation. We have gone through the provisions of Sec.250 and noted that the Income Tax Act authorizes the Ld.CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for default expressly or by inevitable implication, but the Ld.CIT(A) has to decide the appeal on merits and not to dismiss it for default. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default and is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee. But in the present case, the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits. It is also an admitted fact that the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) is statutory appeal and it is the right of the assessee to file the appeal and the Ld.CIT(A) is duty bound to decide the appeal on merits.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.