SHRI MAHESH KUMAR GARG,INDORE vs. ITO /ACIT 5(1) INDORE, INDORE

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 29.09.2022 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 01.03.2022 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“Ld. AO”] u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment- Year [“AY”] 2013-14, the assessee has filed this appeal.

When the case is called, none appeared on behalf of assessee. However, Ld. DR for the revenue was available to argue and on perusal of Page 1 of 3

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 fixed by Ld. CIT(A), 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 the file of Ld. CIT(A) for a proper adjudication. Ld. DR fairly agrees to this but prays to direct the assessee to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A) 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 CIT(A) for a proper adjudication. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to assessee. The assessee is also directed

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.