M/S. MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA SAHAKARI BANK MARYADIT,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 05.01.23passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”],which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 05.02.2016 passed by learned ACIT-1(1), Bhopal[“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2013-14, the assessee has filed this appeal.

When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of assessee. On perusal of case file, it is found that the first-appeal was dismissed by CIT(A) for non-prosecution by assessee. Therefore, the present appeal can be heard 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 and appropriate to remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for a proper adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We order accordingly. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by Ld. CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

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