MR. JAGTAR SINGH,KEONJHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-TDS, SAMBALPUR

Shri BR Panda represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Nishanth Rao P represented on behalf of the Revenue.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench that the orders of ld. CIT (A) is an ex-parte order and is liable to set aside. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench

On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative did not object to such prayer made by the assessee before the Bench.

We after hearing the submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that instant impugned order passed by CIT (A) was dismissed without looking into the merits of the case. In our opinion, the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is in violation of Provision of Section 250(6) of the Act. Sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, mandates the ld. CIT(A) to state the point in dispute, and thereafter record reasons in support of his conclusion. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) would indicate that it is not in consonance with mandate given in the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has not made any analysis of facts available on record, including the assessment records and has passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable, it deserves to be set aside. We therefore, feel it necessary and in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for necessary adjudication for which reasonable opportunity to be provided to the assessee to furnish the reply and file relevant details and evidences if needed. It is further clarified that assessee should also not seek any adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause.