DILIP KUMAR DUTTA,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WD-4, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

At the time of hearing, I have gone through the orders of CIT(A) and seen that the orders passed by CIT(A) are ex parte and without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. I also find that the orders of CIT(A) are cryptic one and non-speaking. There is no iota of merits discussed in the orders by CIT(A). The relevant portion of his order for AY 2005-06 is reproduced hereunder: “3.2. Appellant’s grounds and facts available on record is carefully considered. During the course of the appellate proceeding in spite of the repeated opportunity provided the appellant has not produced any evidence due to non-compliance, that the payment made were not sales commission but discount on sales. The A.O. in the assessment order has categorically observed that in the P&L account the expenditure has been claimed under a separate head of sales commission. Had it been discount on sales, it would have been indicated in the sales bills. But no such sales bills were produced during assessment. During the course of appellate proceeding due to continuous non- compliance, there was no occasion for such production. Therefore, it is concluded that the AO has correctly held that the payments are in the nature of sales commission. As no TDS has been done, the expenditure claimed has correctly been disallowed as per provisions of Section 40(a)(ia).” The duty of the CIT(A) is to pass a speaking order after controverting all the facts given by assessee and decide the issue with reasons. Since this was absent in his order, I quash the same