Ram Borewell & Construction Company Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur)
The ITAT Jaipur considered the assessee’s appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2011-12 arising from an assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in civil construction, challenged the ex parte dismissal of its appeal by the CIT(A) for alleged non-prosecution.
The Tribunal noted that the first hearing before the CIT(A) was fixed on 31.10.2018 and the appeal was dismissed on 03.12.2018. During this period, the assessee had sought adjournments on three occasions, all of which were granted. The Tribunal found that the reasons furnished for the adjournments were reasonable and justified, as the assessee was collecting details and preparing submissions. It further observed that this was not a case of complete non-compliance and that the CIT(A) had not issued a final opportunity warning that the appeal would be decided ex parte in the event of further non-compliance.
The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds of appeal on merits. Referring to Section 250(6), it held that the CIT(A) is required to pass a speaking order in writing containing reasons for the conclusions reached. Since the impugned order did not satisfy the statutory requirement under Section 250(6), it could not be sustained.
