RAJIV R. AHUJA,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 25(2), MUMBAI

In this appeal, assessee has challenged the additions of Rs.32,17,253/- made by the Assessing Officer under various heads, namely, late deposit of employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, unexplained expenditure u/s 69C and 40A(3) of the Act. Notably, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground that inspite of providing opportunity of hearing, assessee did not attend and therefore it implied that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal before him.

When the appeal came up for hearing, an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the assessee, but it was deemed fit to reject the same as the appeal can be disposed off on a short point. Notably, the CIT(A) was obligated to dispose off the appeal in the manner prescribed u/s 250(6) of the Act. Sec. 250(6) of the Act prescribes that the order of the CIT(A) disposing off the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. In the context of the requirements of Sec. 250(6) of the Act, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is untenable inasmuch as the CIT(A) has not referred to the grounds raised by the assessee and his decision thereon. Instead, he has dismissed the appeal merely on the ground that the absence of the assessee showed his disinterest in pursuing the appeal before him. Compliance to the requirements of Sec. 250(6) of the Act is conspicuous by its absence in the impugned order and, therefore, on this point itself, we deem it fit and proper to set-aside the appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) who shall adjudicate the matter de novo as per law. Needless to mention, the CIT(A) shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and only thereafter proceed to dispose off the appeal as per law.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above.