M/S. KORTEK ELECTRONICS (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)–VIII, New Delhi, dated 27.10.2014 for assessment year 2007-08.

Ld. CIT (A) noted in the impugned order that on 2 dates of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee and thereafter, the notices return with remarks ‘left’. Again on the last date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) in the absence of any representative from the side of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite notifying the date of hearing through registered post.

After hearing of Ld. DR, we are of the view the matter requires reconsideration at the level of CIT (A).

Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 13,39,004/- on account of excess depreciation on UPS. 6. According to Section 250(6) of the Income Tax, Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass reasoned order on merits even assessee may not appear before him. The impugned order does not show if any notice has been served upon the assessee for hearing of appeal. It, therefore, appears that orders have been passed without serving the notice upon the assessee. 7. Considering the above discussions, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). We, accordingly set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appeal of the assessee to his file with direction to re-decide the appeal of the assessee on merits by giving reasons for decision in the appellate order. Ld. CIT(A) shall also serve the notice upon the assessee for hearing of the appeal and shall give reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.11.2017. Sd/- Sd/- (L. P. SAHU) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date: 14.11.2017 @m!t