Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu
ORDER Per Bhavnesh Saini, J.M.: We have heard the learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record.
The assessee has filed the stay application for stay of the outstanding demand for the assessment year 2013-14. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal is being decided along with the stay application.
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-16, New Delhi dated 21.06.2017 for the assessment year 2013-14.
The ld. CIT(A) noted certain dates of hearing , on which the assessee did not appear before him for hearing and to argue the appeal on merits.
The ld. CIT(A) noted that despite giving opportunity to the assessee, there is no compliance on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. According to section 250(6) of the IT Act, the ld. CIT(A) is required to give points for determination and reasons for decision in the appellate order. However, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution only. Thus, his order cannot be sustained in law.
In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the appeal on merits strictly as per law by giving points for determination and reasons for decision in the appellate order. The ld. CIT(A) shall provide reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the Assessing Officer.