INNOVATIVE AUTOMOVILES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-24, Mumbai dated 14.12.2016, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2013-14, which in turn has arisen from the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 27.03.2016 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

outset, a preliminary plea has been raised before me contending that the CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee by merely noticing the absence of the assessee on the date of hearing. The learned representative for the assessee pointed out that the CIT(A) noted that there was no response from the assessee on the date of hearing and, therefore, he presumed that assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal and has accordingly dismissed the appeal without going into the merits. It was pointed out that in terms of the Affidavit of the Director dated 31.07.2017, at the relevant point of time, there was high turnover in the staff employed by the assessee- company and the concerned employee handling the income-tax matters had put in his resignation and, therefore, there was improper attendance to the notices issued by the CIT(A). The learned representative canvassed that if the matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A), assessee would definitely put in appearance since it was interested in prosecuting the appeal effectively.

M/s. Innovative Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. non-interest on the part of the assessee to prosecute the appeal filed. In my considered opinion, the manner in which CIT(A) has disposed off the appeal is contrary to the procedure prescribed in Sec. 250(6) of the Act. In terms of sub-section (6) of Sec. 250 of the Act, the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose off the appeal in writing by stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such a decision. Quite clearly, in this case, the merits of the Grounds raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) have not been adjudicated, and rather, have not been adverted to at all by the CIT(A). Therefore, on this aspect alone, I find that the order of the CIT(A) is unsustainable having regard to the requirements of Sec. 250(6) of the Act. Accordingly, I deem it fit and proper to set-aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file to be adjudicated afresh as per law. Needless to mention, the CIT(A) shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and only thereafter he shall pass an order afresh, as per law.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29th September, 2017.