HELIZER BORDEN EDUCATION CENTRE,KANPUR vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, GHAZIABAD

At the time of hearing of the stay petitions, it is submitted by the Ld. AR that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned orders ex parte on the ground that the assessee did not show any interest in prosecuting the matter but to reach this conclusion, Ld. CIT(A) referred to the issuance of certain notices which have never been received by the assessee. On this score, Ld. AR seeks stay of the demand. At the same time, it is submitted by Ld. AR that the Ld. CIT(A) did not advert to the merits of the case and therefore the impugned order also cannot be sustained and it may also be necessary to consider the need to remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to pass the order on merits. In this factual situation both the parties submitted that instead of proceeding with the stay petitions, it would be just and convenient to hear and dispose of the appeals themselves. We accept this proposal and proceed to look into the appeals.

We have gone through the record. It could be seen from the impugned orders, Ld. CIT(A) drew an inference that the assessee does not seem to have any interest in proceeding with the appeals to get them disposed of on merits inasmuch as the assessee does not respond to the notices issued for hearing of the matter. In none of the appeals Ld. CIT(A) made a reference to the merits of the case, though he recorded that he decided to dispose of the appeals on the basis of the material available on record. He simply recorded, without going into the merits, that he had no reason to interfere with the stand taken by the learned Assessing Officer. 4. What is recorded by the ld. CIT(A) is the conclusion but not the reasoning. Reasoning is the lifeblood of any order of the judicial or quasi- judicial authority so as to enable the appellate authorities to verify the soundness of the reasoning to decide whether any interference by the