DHARAMPAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), NOIDA

The Ld. CIT(A) noted in the impugned orders that initially appeals were adjourned on the request of the assessee. Thereafter, assessee was informed telephonically of the next date of hearing. However, again appeals are 2 ITA.No.6086 & 6087/Del./2017 Shri Dharmpal, Noida adjourned on the request of the assessee. On the last date of hearing, again request for adjournment was received on the reason that Counsel for Assessee is out of India. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, noted that assessee is not keen on canvassing its appeals, therefore, the same were dismissed for non-prosecution.

After hearing the Learned D.R. and on perusal of the impugned orders, it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A), in the absence of assessee, dismissed the appeals of the assessee for non-prosecution.

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 appeals of the assessee for non- prosecution. Therefore, the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained in law.

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.