RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, NOIDA

The present bunch of appeals have been listed for hearing and we proceed to decide the same by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. In this bunch of 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. In some appeals, the appeal has been decided by CIT(A) on merits but ex parte qua the assessee.

In some of the cases, there is no representation on behalf of the assessee before us but because of the issue involved, we proceed to decide the said appeals after hearing the learned DR for the Revenue.

It is a common case raised by different ARs for the assessee before us 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. In other cases, it is pointed out that where the CIT(A) has decided the issue on merits but ex parte qua the assessee.

The learned DR for the Revenue on the other hand pointed out that sufficient opportunity has been afforded to the assessee. And in some cases, the CIT(A) has decided the issues on merits also. Page | 5

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Under the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, it is incumbent upon the CIT(A) to decide the 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 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 provide 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 bunch of appeals, we find that that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex parte qua the assessee and in most of the cases, had failed to decide the appeals by passing reasoned assessment order.

In some of the appeals, CIT(A) had decided the issue on merits but without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Such order/s suffers from infirmity as it violates the principles of natural justice. In such cases also, we are of the view that reasonable opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the assessee before deciding the issues on merits.

Accordingly, we set aside the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with direction to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits by a reasoned order, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

In it was pointed out that the assessee had expired and the appeal before the CIT(A) was filed by his legal heir i.e. his wife. However, the wife of the assessee also expired during the pending appellate proceedings. The learned AR for the assessee pointed out that an application was filed before the CIT(A) to bring on record the son of the assessee as his legal heir. However, the CIT(A) has passed order in the name of wife of the assessee, who had demised. It was also pointed out that the order has been passed ex parte qua the assessee. In line with our decision in paras above, we remit this appeal also back to the file of the CIT(A) who shall decide the same after taking the legal heir on record and after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Hence this bunch of appeals are restored back to the file of respective CIT(A)/s to decide the issue on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to comply with notices issued by the CIT(A). The preliminary issue raised in all the appeals is thus decided in favour of assessee.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th day of November, 2019.