M/S. ROSE VALLEY EDUCATION SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI

I have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the findings of the authorities below.

In this case, earlier appeals of the assessee were dismissed for default. However, on allowing the M.As of the assessee, both the appeals were restored. Accordingly, both the appeals were fixed for hearing on merits.

In ITA.No.4551/Del./2016, the assessee challenged the quantum order passed under section 144 of the I.T. Act. The Ld. CIT(A), noted several dates of hearing, on which, assessee did not appear before him and lastly, adjournment was sought.

In ITA.No.4552/Del./2016 is directed against the penalty order under section 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A), similarly noted in his order that on several dates of hearing, nobody appeared from the side of assessee and lastly, the assessee appeared and sought adjournment which was 3 ITA.Nos.4551 & 4552/Del./2016 M/s. Rose Valley Education Society, New Delhi.

After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that both the matters requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). According to Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass reasoned order on merit. However, in this case, the Ld. CIT(A) instead of deciding both the appeals on merits giving reasons for decision as per law, simply dismissed both the appeals of the assessee by holding that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeals. Even if assessee may not appear before him on the date of hearing, Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass reasoned order on merits as per law.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.