SAKET METAL TECHNOCRAFT PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-22(1), NEW DELHI

In this case, Ld. CIT(A) has noted certain dates of hearing which were fixed for hearing of the appeal. It is also noted that assessee has been repeatedly seeking adjournment. Ld. CIT(A), thereafter, reproduced the entire assessment order in the impugned order and concluded that since the assessee did not press the appeal despite several opportunities. Therefore, in absence of any counter to the assessment order appeal of assessee was dismissed.

The facts noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order clearly show that the impugned order is violative of Sec. 250(6) of the IT Act. Even if the assessee did not appear before Ld. CIT(A), Ld. CIT(A) shall have to mention point for determination and reasons for decision in the appellate order. Since the Ld. CIT(A) in absence of the assessee merely dismiss the appeal of the assessee in default, would clearly show that impugned order is violative of Sec. 250(6) of the IT Act and, as such, cannot be sustained in law. 6. I, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of Ld. CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi with direction to re-decide the appeal of the assessee strictly on merits giving reasons for decision in the appellate order. Ld. CIT(A) is directed to give opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 04.01.2021.