RUPESH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUDHIANA

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 24.05.2023 passed for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has taken two grounds of appeal wherein he has pleaded that ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the A.Y.2017-18 2

addition of Rs.12,30,000/- by way of ex-parte order passed against the assessee.
3. In response to the notice of hearing, no one has come present on behalf of the assessee. This is sixth occasion when notices have been issued upon the assessee in perpetuity. With the assistance of ld. DR, we have gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the record would indicate that ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merit, rather dismissed it for want of prosecution.
4. Sub-section (6) of Section 250 contemplates that CIT(A) would state the points in dispute and thereafter record his reasons in support of his conclusion. The ld. First Appellate
Authority has failed to adhere this procedure contemplated in sub-clause (6) of Section 250. The CIT(A) has neither called for the material processed by the AO nor recorded reasons in support of his conclusions, rather he dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of CIT(A) and restore this appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to A.Y.2017-18
3

submit necessary details in support of his explanation qua the cash deposits in the bank account.
5. In view of the above, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 10.03.2025. (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL)
VICE PRESIDENT

“Poonam”

आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :

आदेशानुसार/ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार/