RAVDEEP SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4, PATIALA
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 31.10.2023 passed for assessment year 2017- 18. 2. The assessee has taken nine grounds of appeal, out of which under Ground No.2, assessee has pleaded that ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for want of prosecution. A.Y.2017-18 2
In Ground No. 3 and 4, he has challenged addition of Rs.10,41,500/-. 4. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we find that ld. First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution by observing that number of notices have been issued but the assessee did not respond to the notices. However, if sub- section (6) of Section 250 is being perused, then it provides that ld.CIT (Appeals) has to formulate the points in dispute and thereafter record reasons in support of his conclusion on those points. Thus, ld.CIT (Appeals) has failed to adhere the mandatory procedure contemplated in Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and restore this appeal to the file of ld.CIT (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merit. The assessee is directed to intimate his latest address alongwith e-mail etc. so that notice could be served upon him. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 22.09.2025. (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” A.Y.2017-18 3
आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :
अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File
सहायक पंजीकार/