SRI P.VAITHYALINGAM,TRICHY vs. ITO WARD-1(2), TRICHY

आदेश /O R D E R

2 2. At the outset, it is noticed that none present for assessee, when the appeal was called for hearing. However, going through the facts, I decided to decide the appeal after hearing ld. senior Department Representative.

by the assessee in regard to two additions of Rs.3,00,000/- of expenditure and Rs.4,00,000/- towards receipt each from assessee’s HUF and his brother’s HUF, added by the AO. The contention of the assessee in grounds of appeal is against ex- parte order passed by CIT(A) without recording any finding on merits. I noticed from the order of CIT(A), para 4 which reads as under:-

4. It appears that assessee has no interest in pursuing appeal filed by him and has nothing to say and he is either unwilling or incapable of furnishing adequate evidence in support of his own claims. On basis of details available from record it could be seen that appeal of assessee has no merit and the same is hence dismissed.”

The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal simply for non- prosecution. When these facts were confronted to ld. senior Department Representative, he fairly conceded the position and stated that matter can be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A).

3 4. 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, 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. We order accordingly.