Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI
ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Faridabad, Dated 17.05.2018, for the A.Y. 2009-2010.
The Ld. CIT(A) noted that number of opportunities have been provided to the assessee for hearing of the appeal, but, they remained un-complied with. The Counsel for Assessee sought adjournments repeatedly
2 ITA.No.4570/Del./2018 Shri Hardwari Lal, Faridabad which were granted. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, noted that more than sufficient opportunities have been given to the assessee, but, the assessee failed to substantiate his claim made in the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, dismissed the appeal of assessee.
I have heard the Learned D.R. and perused the impugned order.
4. According to Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to mention point for determination and reasons for decision in his appellate order. Even if the assessee did not appear before Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) should have to decide the appeal on merits giving reasons for decision in the appellate order. However, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of assessee for non- prosecution. Therefore, the order cannot be sustained in law.
3. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A), Faridabad, and restore the appeal of assessee to his file with a direction to re-decide the appeal of 3 ITA.No.4570/Del./2018 Shri Hardwari Lal, Faridabad assessee in accordance with law, giving reasons for decision in the appellate order by giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court.