Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI
Before: MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA & DR.B.R.R.KUMAR, AM
आदेश / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA,VP The present appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A)-4, New Delhi dated 23.11.2016 relating to assessment year 2005-06 against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) for deciding the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee and without going into the merits of the addition.
The Ld.AR for the assessee moved an application for adjournment which is rejected/refused, as CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order without allowing sufficient opportunity of hearing and without going into the merits of the case.
The Ld. DR for the Revenue on the other hand pointed out that sufficient opportunity has been afforded to the assessee.
We have heard Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record. Under the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”), it is incumbent upon the CIT(A) to decide the appeal after hearing the parties and state the points for determination, the decision thereon and also the reasons for the decision. While deciding the appeal, CIT(A) has no power to dismiss this appeal for non prosecution by relying on the ratio/s laid down in CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another 118 ITR 461 (SC) and Late Tukoji Rao Holker vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP). In these facts and circumstances, where the CIT(A) had dismissed this appeal by applying the above said ratios, the order of the learned CIT(A) suffers from infirmity. The CIT(A) while deciding the issue on merits have also to give reasons for coming to the conclusion and in the absence of the same, the order of the CIT(A) again suffers from infirmity. In this appeal, we find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee and had failed to decide the appeal by passing reasoned order.
Accordingly, we set aside the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with direction to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits by a reasoned order, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Further the assessee is also directed to appear before the CIT(A) and participate in the Assessment Year 2005-06 appellate proceedings. This appeal is thus decided on this preliminary issue without going into the merits of the addition.
Hence this appeal is restored back to the file of CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with notices issued by the CIT(A). The preliminary issue raised in this appeal is thus decided in favour of assessee. Since this appeal is being decided on the preliminary issue, we are not addressing the issue raised on merit.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09th March, 2020.