M/S. ROSE MATCHES PVT. LTD.,KOVILPATTI vs. DCIT CIRCLE I, , TUTICORIN

2 2. At the outset, none is present from assessee’s side but seeing the order of CIT(A), which is ex-parte order, I proceeded to decide the appeal. From the order of CIT(A), I noticed that he has not at all discussed about the facts of the case on merits. The relevant adjudication by CIT(A) in Para 5 reads as under: “5. ………… …………….. During the course of the present appellate proceedings, the appellant company has chosen not to comply with the hearing notices. The appellant company had not submitted any documentary evidence to controvert the findings recorded in the assessment order. It is further observed that the authorized representative of the assessee had no objection to such addition. In absence of any documentary evidence to controvert the findings made by the Assessing Officer, the grounds taken in respect of this issue, remain unsubstantiated, and are hence dismissed and the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this issue is confirmed.”

After hearing ld. senior DR and going through the case records as noted above, I’m of the view that the CIT(A) is a quasi judicial authority and in the statute of Income Tax Act, 3 CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal for default expressly or by inevitable implication, but the appellate authority has to decide the appeal on merits. The appellate authority has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for default but he is bound to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of the assessee. Hence, dismissal for default by CIT(A) is bad in law and accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(A). The appeal is remanded back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I order accordingly.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.