Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices. The assessee's counsel argued that the CIT(A) failed to decide the issue on merit and requested the appeal be restored for fresh adjudication.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not comply with notices, leading to an ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A). However, citing Section 250(6) of the Act, the Tribunal noted the requirement for a reasoned order on merits even without representation. An undertaking was given by the assessee's counsel for future compliance.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits, and whether the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250(6), 10(38), 68, 69C, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds:
1. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in passing an ex parte order and confirming the addition made by the Id. Assessing Officer and the the addition made by the Id. Assessing Officer and the the addition made by the Id. Assessing Officer and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax and rules made thereunder. Income Tax and rules made thereunder.
2. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law the On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law the On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in not issuing any fresh notice even though Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in not issuing any fresh notice even though Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in not issuing any fresh notice even though adjournment was adjournment was sought and confirming the addition made by sought and confirming the addition made by the Id. Assessing Officer and the reasons assigned for doing so the Id. Assessing Officer and the reasons assigned for doing so the Id. Assessing Officer and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax and rules are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax and rules are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax and rules made thereunder. made thereunder.
3. Without prejudice to the other ground of appeal
, On the facts and Without prejudice to the other ground of appeal, On the facts and Without prejudice to the other ground of appeal, On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal in limine without considering dismissing the appellant's appeal in limine without considering dismissing the appellant's appeal in limine without considering the subject issues on merit. Therefore, the appeal may kindly be the subject issues on merit. Therefore, the appeal may kindly be the subject issues on merit. Therefore, the appeal may kindly be restored to the Hon'ble CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. restored to the Hon'ble CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
4. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, On the facts and in t prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, On the facts and in t prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld AO of Rs. 41,99,609/ in upholding the addition made by the Ld AO of Rs. 41,99,609/ in upholding the addition made by the Ld AO of Rs. 41,99,609/- on account of LTCG earned on sale of shares of Wagend Infra on account of LTCG earned on sale of shares of Wagend Infra on account of LTCG earned on sale of shares of Wagend Infra Venture L Venture Ltd claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the IT act as td claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the IT act as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the IT act 1961 and the reasons unexplained credit u/s 68 of the IT act 1961 and the reasons unexplained credit u/s 68 of the IT act 1961 and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. Income Tax Act and rules made there under.
5. On the facts and in the circumstances On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld AO Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld AO Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld AO of Rs. 1,25,988/ of Rs. 1,25,988/-on account of hypothetical commission paid on on account of hypothetical commission paid on sale of shares of Wagend Infra Venture Ltd as unexplained sale of shares of Wagend Infra Venture Ltd as unexplained sale of shares of Wagend Infra Venture Ltd as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the IT act 1961 and expenditure u/s 69C of the IT act 1961 and the reasons assigned the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. Tax Act and rules made there under.
6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty initiated by the Ld Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty initiated by the Ld Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the reasons assigned for u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the reasons assigned for u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. Act and rules made there under.
2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal ex-parte without deciding the parte without deciding the issue in dispute on merit and therefore, appeal may be restored issue in dispute on merit and therefore, appeal may be restored issue in dispute on merit and therefore, appeal may be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh on merit. back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh on merit. back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh on merit.
3. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on rec relevant material on record. We find that though the assessee did ord. We find that though the assessee did not comply to the various no the various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), h tices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), however, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in default the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in default the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in default without deciding the issue on merit. The relevant finding of the Ld. without deciding the issue on merit. The relevant finding of the Ld. without deciding the issue on merit. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: reproduced as under:
“6. Decision I have gone through the facts of the case, Statement of Facts filed I have gone through the facts of the case, Statement of Facts filed I have gone through the facts of the case, Statement of Facts filed alongwith Form No. 35 and the Assessment Order passed by the AO. alongwith Form No. 35 and the Assessment Order passed by the AO. alongwith Form No. 35 and the Assessment Order passed by the AO. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted submission in the submission in the form of 'Statement of Facts'. After that neither he has form of 'Statement of Facts'. After that neither he has replied replied replied to to to hearing hearing hearing notices notices notices nor nor nor submitted submitted submitted any any any documentary documentary documentary evidence/information to prove his side. Sufficient and adequate evidence/information to prove his side. Sufficient and adequate evidence/information to prove his side. Sufficient and adequate opportunities were afforded to the appellant as indicated supra. No opportunities were afforded to the appellant as indicated supra. No opportunities were afforded to the appellant as indicated supra. No reply whatsoever has been submitted by the appellant. oever has been submitted by the appellant. From the above sequence of event, it can be seen that appellant has not From the above sequence of event, it can be seen that appellant has not From the above sequence of event, it can be seen that appellant has not replied to any of the notices issued on various occasion although notices replied to any of the notices issued on various occasion although notices replied to any of the notices issued on various occasion although notices have been duly served on the E Mail id provided. As the appellant h have been duly served on the E Mail id provided. As the appellant h have been duly served on the E Mail id provided. As the appellant has not availed any of the opportunities allowed to him to represent the not availed any of the opportunities allowed to him to represent the not availed any of the opportunities allowed to him to represent the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant is not interested in pursuing case, I am of the opinion that the appellant is not interested in pursuing case, I am of the opinion that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal matter and has to say nothing in the matter in addition to his appeal matter and has to say nothing in the matter in addition to his appeal matter and has to say nothing in the matter in addition to grounds of appeal taken by him. So, the grounds of appeal taken by him. So, the appeal filed by the appellant is appeal filed by the appellant is being disposed off ex being disposed off ex-parte on the basis of the material available on parte on the basis of the material available on records without allowing any further opportunity of being heard to the records without allowing any further opportunity of being heard to the records without allowing any further opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The maxim 'vigilantibus non appellant. The maxim 'vigilantibus non-dermientibus jura subvenunt" dermientibus jura subvenunt" i.e. "the law assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights" is applicable in this case. their rights" is applicable in this case. 6.1 Hon'ble ITAT in 6.1 Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No. 1025-1027/Chandi/2005 for the A.Y. 2002 1027/Chandi/2005 for the A.Y. 2002- 03 in the case of M/s Chhabra, Land and housing Ltd. after following 03 in the case of M/s Chhabra, Land and housing Ltd. after following 03 in the case of M/s Chhabra, Land and housing Ltd. after following the decision of H the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. on'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 [SC] held that the appeal does not mean Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 [SC] held that the appeal does not mean Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 [SC] held that the appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it. merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it. 6.2 The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in ITA The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in ITA The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in ITA No.6876/Mum/2008:Asst. Year 20 No.6876/Mum/2008:Asst. Year 2005-2006 in the case of M/s. Classic 2006 in the case of M/s. Classic Shares Shares & & Stock Stock Broking Broking Services Services Limited Limited Vs. Vs. The The Assistant Assistant Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income-tax in the order dated 18.01.2012 has held as tax in the order dated 18.01.2012 has held as follows:- "2. This appeal was fixed for hearing on 16.01.2012. However, "2. This appeal was fixed for hearing on 16.01.2012. However, "2. This appeal was fixed for hearing on 16.01.2012. However, despite notice, none despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor has it moved any application for adjournment. It is, therefore, it moved any application for adjournment. It is, therefore, it moved any application for adjournment. It is, therefore, presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Accordingly, by applying the ratio laid down by the ITAT appeal. Accordingly, by applying the ratio laid down by the ITAT appeal. Accordingly, by applying the ratio laid down by the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320], we dismiss this appeal filed by the [(1991) 38 ITD 320], we dismiss this appeal filed by the [(1991) 38 ITD 320], we dismiss this appeal filed by the Appellant Appellant-assessee as not maintainable.
3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed."
3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed."
6.3 The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in ITA No. The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in ITA No. 5532(Del)/2010 5532(Del)/2010 of Assessment year: 2007-08 in the case of M/s 08 in the case of M/s Panwar Roshin & Turpentine Co. Panwar Roshin & Turpentine Co. Ltd. vs Income-tax Officer has held as tax Officer has held as follows:- "2. "2. "2. The The The appeal appeal appeal was was was filed filed filed on on on 08.12.2010 08.12.2010 08.12.2010 when when when an an an acknowledgement cum acknowledgement cum-notice was served on the bearer under notice was served on the bearer under which the appeal was fi which the appeal was fixed for hearing on 10.02.2011. None xed for hearing on 10.02.2011. None attended on that date. Thereafter, another notice dated attended on that date. Thereafter, another notice dated attended on that date. Thereafter, another notice dated 07.10.2011 was served on the assessee through the official 07.10.2011 was served on the assessee through the official 07.10.2011 was served on the assessee through the official courier, fixing the hearing on 13.12.2011. When the case was courier, fixing the hearing on 13.12.2011. When the case was courier, fixing the hearing on 13.12.2011. When the case was called for hearing on this date, neither any called for hearing on this date, neither anybody attended nor body attended nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, it is held that the any adjournment was sought. Therefore, it is held that the any adjournment was sought. Therefore, it is held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In such a assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In such a assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In such a situation, the appeal is likely to be dismissed in limine, in view situation, the appeal is likely to be dismissed in limine, in view situation, the appeal is likely to be dismissed in limine, in view of the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan of the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320(Del) and Estate of Late Tukajirao Holkar Vs. CWT, 223 ITD 320(Del) and Estate of Late Tukajirao Holkar Vs. CWT, 223 ITD 320(Del) and Estate of Late Tukajirao Holkar Vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P). ITR 480 (M.P). It is held accordingly.
3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed."
In the result, the appeal is dismissed." 6.4 The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench, Kolkata in The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench, Kolkata in The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A No. 1038/Kol/2011 1038/Kol/2011 for Assessment Year 1997-1998 in the case of 1998 in the case of Shyam Sunder Somani, vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in its Shyam Sunder Somani, vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in its Shyam Sunder Somani, vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in its order dated 11.04.2012 has dismissed the appeal in absence of order dated 11.04.2012 has dismissed the appeal in absence of order dated 11.04.2012 has dismissed the appeal in absence of attendance by holding as follows: attendance by holding as follows:- "2. The case was fixed for hearing on 11.04.2012 "2. The case was fixed for hearing on 11.04.2012. However, on . However, on the date fixed for, i.e. 11.04.2012 neither anybody on behalf of the date fixed for, i.e. 11.04.2012 neither anybody on behalf of the date fixed for, i.e. 11.04.2012 neither anybody on behalf of the assessee is present nor there is any application for the assessee is present nor there is any application for the assessee is present nor there is any application for adjournment. It appears that the assessee is not interested in adjournment. It appears that the assessee is not interested in adjournment. It appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. prosecuting this appeal.
3. The law assists those who are 3. The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the wellknown dictum wellknown dictum - "vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura dormientibus, jura subveniunt". subveniunt".
4. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of 4. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of 4. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as was Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as was considered in the case of considered in the case of CIT -vs. vs.- Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) 2 ITA No. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) 2 ITA No. 1038/Kol./2011 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya 1038/Kol./2011 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya 1038/Kol./2011 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, we treat t Holkar vs. C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, we treat t Holkar vs. C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, we treat this appeal as dismissed. as dismissed.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed."
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed."
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed." 6.5 The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore Bench "A" in The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore Bench "A" in The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore Bench "A" in I.T.A. No.971/Bang/2010 for Assessment Year 2004 No.971/Bang/2010 for Assessment Year 2004-05; in the case of 05; in the case of Shri C.S. Ashok Prop. Trupti Shri C.S. Ashok Prop. Trupti Service Station vs. Income Tax Officer, Service Station vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3), Bangalore in its order dated 18.04.2012 has held as Ward 4(3), Bangalore in its order dated 18.04.2012 has held as Ward 4(3), Bangalore in its order dated 18.04.2012 has held as follows:- "This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment "This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment "This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2004 year is 2004-05. The appeal is directed against the order of the 05. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner o Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- Il at Bangalore dated Il at Bangalore dated 22.01.2010. The appeal arise out of the assessment completed 22.01.2010. The appeal arise out of the assessment completed 22.01.2010. The appeal arise out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
At the time of hearing, it is noticed that the appeal was 2. At the time of hearing, it is noticed that the appeal was 2. At the time of hearing, it is noticed that the appeal was initially fixed for hearing on 9.8.2011 after al initially fixed for hearing on 9.8.2011 after allowing the Misc. lowing the Misc. Petition filed by the assessee. Petition filed by the assessee. Afterwards, the case was Afterwards, the case was adjourned several times for various reasons and finally fixed for adjourned several times for various reasons and finally fixed for adjourned several times for various reasons and finally fixed for hearing on 18.4.2012. The assessee's counsel appeared on hearing on 18.4.2012. The assessee's counsel appeared on hearing on 18.4.2012. The assessee's counsel appeared on 24.02.2012 and in his presence the case was adjourned. The 24.02.2012 and in his presence the case was adjourned. The 24.02.2012 and in his presence the case was adjourned. The assessee has been seeking adjournment on the earlier assessee has been seeking adjournment on the earlier assessee has been seeking adjournment on the earlier occasions. However today, even date, when the case is posted occasions. However today, even date, when the case is posted occasions. However today, even date, when the case is posted for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. In view of the for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. In view of the for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested same, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested same, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the ap in pursuing the appeal. The law aids those who are vigilant, not peal. The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well-known dictum, known dictum, "VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. SUB VENIUNT. Considering the facts and keeping in view Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT vs.Multiplan India Rules as were considered in the case of CIT vs.Multiplan India Rules as were considered in the case of CIT vs.Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del) we treat this appeal as un Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del) we treat this appeal as un-admitted. admitted.
3. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh 3. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh 3. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) wherein it has been held as under: CWT (223 ITR 480) wherein it has been held as under: CWT (223 ITR 480) wherein it has been held as under: "... if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to "... if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to "... if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference." court is not bound to answer the reference." 5.7 Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case 5.7 Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case 5.7 Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee. ere was not any assistance from the assessee. 6.6 Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another(118 ITR 461 at page 477 Bhattachargee & Another(118 ITR 461 at page 477-78) held that the 78) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. ursuing the same.
So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited 6. So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited 6. So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee for non supra, we dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee for non supra, we dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee for non- prosecution. prosecution.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed"
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed"
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed"
6.7 A similar view has been expressed by 6.7 A similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble ITAT "B" Bench, the Hon'ble ITAT "B" Bench, Lucknow in the case of M/s. Kanchan Singh Bhuli Devi Shiksha vs CIT Lucknow in the case of M/s. Kanchan Singh Bhuli Devi Shiksha vs CIT Lucknow in the case of M/s. Kanchan Singh Bhuli Devi Shiksha vs CIT- 1 in & 707 (LKW)/2010 in its order dated 12 1 in ITA No. 706 & 707 (LKW)/2010 in its order dated 12-01 01-2012 and by the Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar in its order dated 21 by the Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar in its order dated 21-06-2011 in IT No. 2011 in IT No. 488(Asr)/2010 in the 488(Asr)/2010 in the case of M/s Shamsher Jang Bahadur vs ACIT, case of M/s Shamsher Jang Bahadur vs ACIT, CC-1, Jalandhar that the appeal is to be dismissed for want of 1, Jalandhar that the appeal is to be dismissed for want of 1, Jalandhar that the appeal is to be dismissed for want of prosecution.” 3.1 Under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act Under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act Under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order on the merit of the issue CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order on the merit of the issue CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order on the merit of the issue in dispute even in case of non dispute even in case of non-representation on the part of the representation on the part of the assessee. The Ld. counsel on behalf of the assessee has given an The Ld. counsel on behalf of the assessee has given an The Ld. counsel on behalf of the assessee has given an undertaking that due compliance of the notices issued by the Ld. undertaking that due compliance of the notices issued by the Ld. undertaking that due compliance of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) would be made in case matter is sent back to him. In the CIT(A) would be made in case matter is sent back to him. CIT(A) would be made in case matter is sent back to him. facts and circumstances facts and circumstances, we feel it appropriate to restore this we feel it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a reasoned order even is directed to pass a reasoned order even in case of in case of non- representation on the part of the assessee. The grounds raised by representation on the part of the assessee. The grounds raised by representation on the part of the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.