SHRI PAWAN OJHA,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ACIT, NOIDA

However at the time of hearing, the parties were heard only in respect of ground no.1 which read as under :- “1. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida was bad in law, against the principle of natural justice and arbitrary. The Ld. CIT(A) has not provided the sufficient opportunity to the appellant before deciding the appeal.”

The Ld.AR inviting attention to the impugned order submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the CIT(A) without addressing the issue on merits and has dismissed the appeal on the ground that on the two dates the appeal was fixed for hearing, the assessee had moved an adjournment. Accordingly, it was his limited prayer that the opportunity of being heard may be provided and the issue be restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Ld. Sr.DR considering the order under challenged though stated that two opportunities have been provided to the assessee i.e. on 11.05.2016 and 02.06.2016.

The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee who is stated to be a manufacturer and exporter of 100% Organic cotton Knitted Garments business declared a taxable income of Rs.42,09,232/-. Considering the bills and vouchers of the expenses claimed which were produced by the assessee the AO made a disallowance of 1/5th of the same in order to “prevent leakage of revenue” on the ground that “certain expenses were unvouched”.

The assessee challenged the said addition before the CIT(A) vide Ground Nos.1 and 2. However, the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) on the ground that despite availing of two opportunities, the assessee was still found to seek another adjournment holding as under :- “In view of these controlling facts and as sufficient opportunity has already been allowed to the appellant and appellant has not considered it necessary to enter appearance and defend the case the pending appeal is decided on the basis of the material available on record and the impugned order of assessment passed by the ld. A.O.”

Considering the submissions of the parties before the Bench, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be upheld as the statutory requirement set out in sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have not been met. It is seen that neither the Ld. Commissioner has cared to address the points for determination which arose for his consideration nor the reasons for his decision to accept or reject the claim. Accordingly, in view of this patent and obvious deficiency in the impugned order it is set- aside to address this Statutory deficit. The issues are restored back to the file of the Ld. Commissioner with a direction to pass a speaking order which is in conformity with the Statutory mandate after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.