SRI. SANKARARAO MAVIDI,SRIKAKULAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 1, BANGALORE

Ld.Sr.DR relied upon orders passed by authorities below.

We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 5. We notice that Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits and has dismissed the appeal in limine. In our opinion income tax act does not provide Ld.CIT(A)to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. As per provisions of Section 250(6), an order of passed by Ld.CIT(A) disposing of an appeal should be in writing and state points for determination, decision thereon and reason for the decision. The impugned order passed by Ld.CIT(A) is clearly violation to provisions of Section 250(6). The underlying rationale of the provision is that such orders are subject to further appeal to the appellate Tribunal. Speaking order would obviously enable a party to know precise points decided in his favour or against him. Absence of the formulation of the point for decision for want of clarity in a decision undoubtedly puts a party in quandary. Section 250(6) expressly embodies the principles of natural justice and such a provision is clearly mandatory in nature. The impugned order passed by Ld.CIT(A) is therefore in violation of provisions of Section 250(6) and cannot be sustained. 6. We therefore set aside this appeal back to Ld.CIT(A), with the direction to pass speaking and well reasoned order on merits in a accordance to section 250 (6) of the Act.