REGEN INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(1), CHENNAI

Both the appeals of the assessee are directed against the common order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Chennai dated 24.04.2019 and pertains to the assessment years 2014-15 & 2015-16. Therefore, we heard both the appeals together and disposing of the same by this common order.

Shri B. Ramakrishnan, the Ld. Representative for the assessee submitted that the representative for the assessee Shri N.S. Sriram underwent a surgery. Therefore, he could not appear before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the assessee has no occasion to represent the matter before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has simply reproduced the assessment order and observed that he concurred with the finding of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Ld. representative submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration on merit.

We heard Shri S. Bharath, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The Ld.DR very fairly submitted that since the assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) after reproducing the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer found that he concurred with the findings of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for reconsideration on merit.

Having heard the Ld. Representative for the assessee and the Ld.DR, this Tribunal finds that Shri N.S. Sriram, the Ld. representative for the assessee underwent a surgery. Therefore, he could not represent the case before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) therefore found that the assessee was no more interested in pursuing the appeal. Accordingly he reproduced the findings of the Assessing Officer and concurred with the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that U/s.251 of the Act, the CIT(A) is expected to re-appreciate the material available on record and dispose the appeal on merit by a speaking order. The CIT(A) has to record his own reason for the conclusion reached in the first appellate order. Moreover since Shri N.S. Sriram, the Ld. representative for the assessee admittedly underwent a surgery, giving one more opportunity to the assessee to argue the matter before the CIT(A) may not prejudice the interest of the Revenue in any way. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that giving an opportunity to the assessee would definitely promote the cause of justice. Accordingly the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the entire issue raised by the assessee is remitted back to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) shall re-examine the entire issues raised by the assessee afresh and decide the same in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Thus needless to mention that CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order by recording his own reasons

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed.