RAM BHUSHAN KHEDLE,BHOPAL vs. I.T.O. 5(2), BHOPAL

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 23.06.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 28.11.2017 passed by learned ITO-

Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”. We observe that in the present case, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal, although due to non-prosecution by assessee on the dates of hearing, but still without complying with the mandate of section 250(6). Therefore, the impugned first appeal-order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside and the matter is fit for remand to him for a proper adjudication. Ld. AR for assessee, however, prays that the assessment-order was also passed by AO as ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act. Therefore, in the situation, it would be better to remand this matter to AO instead of CIT(A) for a thorough adjudication after examination of evidences to be placed by assessee. Ld. DR agreed to the proposal of Ld. AR but, however, requested to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments. In view of this and also having regard to the principle of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to give one more opportunity to assessee so that the assessee can represent his case before AO for a proper adjudication. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to assessee. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournment.

Resultantly, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.