I TECH INSURANCE BROKERS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In both appeals, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) for deciding the appeals ex-parte qua the assessee and without going into the merits of the addition.

The learned AR for the assessee pointed out 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 the rival contentions 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 these appeals after hearing the parties and state the points for determination, the decision thereon and also the reasons for the decision. While deciding the appeals, CIT(A) has no power to dismiss these appeals 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 these appeals 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 these appeals, we find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals ex-parte qua the assessee and had failed to decide the appeals by passing reasoned assessment order.