AJAY GUPTA ,CHANDIGARH vs. COMMINISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), CHANDIGARH

The Registry has pointed out that appeal is time barred by one day. After going through the application of the assessee, we condone the delay in filing the appeal.

In brief, the first grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution instead of deciding it on merit. Similarly, it has also been pleaded that assessment order is also ex-parte order.

With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. It is pertinent to note that sub- clause (6) of Section 250 contemplates that CIT (Appeals) would state the points in dispute and thereafter record reasons in support of the conclusion on those points. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has failed to adhere this mandatory procedure, hence the order of the CIT (Appeals) is not sustainable. However, we find that since assessment order is also an ex- parte order, therefore, instead of instituting the proceedings at two levels, namely, CIT (Appeals) as well as before the AO from whom he would call for a remand report, on the evidences submitted by the assessee before the CIT (Appeals), we deem it appropriate to set aside it to AO who will re-adjudicate the A.Y.2017-18 3 issues after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to raise all these pleas which have been raised in these 34 grounds of appeal before the AO including objecting the re-opening of assessment.