MANOJ MAHAWAR HUF,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BIKANER

In response to the notice of hearing, no one has come present on behalf of assessee.

With the assistance of ld. DR, we have gone through the record carefully. The assessee has filed his return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs.6,34,260/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) has been issued and served upon the assessee. In response to the notice of AO, assessee did not appear before the ld. AO and AO has passed assessment order according to his best judgement. In other words, the assessment was framed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act.

Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee.

With the assistance of ld. DR, we have gone through the record carefully. We find that ld. First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Sub-section (6) of Section 250 contemplates that ld. CIT(A) would formulate the questions in dispute and thereafter record reasons on such points in support of the conclusions. Ld. CIT(A) has not followed this mandatory procedure, rather dismissed appeal ITA 649/Jodh/2024 Α.Υ. 2015-16 3 for want of prosecution. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to give one more opportunity to the assessee to explain his case before the ld. CIT(A). The impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the issues are relegated to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision.