AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bhavnesh Saini, J
This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, New Delhi, Dated 17.03.2016, for the A.Y. 2009-2010.
We have heard the Learned Representative of both the parties.
The Ld. CIT(A) noted in the appellate order that assessee took adjournments in the matter and written submissions were filed at DAK. Thereafter appeal was further adjourned. However, on the last date of hearing, none appeared before him. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A), considering that assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, dismissed the appeal of assessee ex-parte.
After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the level of the Ld. CIT(A). According to Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to mention point for determination and reasons for decision in his appellate order. Even if the assessee did not appear before Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) should have to decide the appeal on merits giving reasons for decision in the appellate order. However, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of assessee for non-prosecution. Therefore, the order cannot be sustained in law.
In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A)-4, New Delhi and restore the appeal of assessee to his file with a direction to re-decide the appeal of assessee in accordance with law, giving reasons for decision in the appellate order by giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of assessee allowed for statistical purposes.