SANJEEV PREENJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 41(1), NEW DELHI

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.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee and we find that the CIT(A) has passed the ex-parte order without allowing sufficient opportunity of hearing and without going into the merits of the case.

The learned 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 the 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 the 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 the present 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 assessment order.