SMT. PARMESHWARI DEVI SARAF,PASCHIM BURDWAN vs. I.T.O.,WARD-3(1), ASANSOL

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 17 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Smt. Parmeshwari Devi Saraf the assessee has moved an application seeking condonation of the said delay and keeping in view the reasons given therein, we are satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the delay of 17 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Even the ld. D.R. has not raised any objection in this regard. The delay of 17 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal is accordingly condoned.

The assessee in the present case is an individual, who filed her return of income for the year under consideration originally on 13.03.2010 declaring total income of Rs.2,38,020/-. The said return was initially processed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment, however, was reopened by the Assessing Officer subsequently and a notice under section 148 was issued by him on 12.03.2014 after recording the reasons. In reply, a letter was filed by the assessee on 21.08.2014 requesting the Assessing Officer to treat the return originally filed on 13.03.2010 as the return filed in response to the notice under section 148. Thereafter assessment under section 143(3)/147 was completed by the Assessing Officer vide an order dated 30.03.2015 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.88,17,650/- after making certain additions.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution vide his appellate order dated 25.06.2018 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

At the time of hearing before the Tribunal fixed today, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. The ld. D.R. has submitted that since the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) vide his impugned order for non-prosecution due to non-compliance on the part of the assessee, the matter may be sent back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit after giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the interest of substantial justice. We appreciate this fair and proper approach adopted by the ld. D.R. Moreover, the ld. CIT(Appeals) as per the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 250 was required to dispose of the appeal of the assessee vide an order in writing stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. It is observed that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) does not comply with these requirements. We accordingly set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and remit the matter back to him for disposing of the appeal of the assessee afresh on merit in accordance with law by passing a well reasoned and well discussed order after giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on February 10, 2020.