Case Law Details
Kaushalkumar G Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
The issue under consideration is whether the order passed by the CIT(A) is justified as per law or not?
The Id.CIT(A) has noticed the details of hearing and how the assessee has complied with the directions, No doubt the hearings in all these appeals were fixed on seven occasions. Out of seven occasions, the assessee appeared on six occasions, but hearing was adjourned. On the seventh occasion, no one could appear before the CIT(A). After that the ld.CIT(A), has concluded the hearing and dismissed the appeals by way of separate orders. Sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 contemplates that the ld.CIT(A) would states the points in dispute and thereafter assign reasons in support of conclusions. On perusal of the impugned orders would indicate that the ld.CIT(A) has simply concurred with the AO without formulating specific points and taking note of details available before the Id.CIT(A). In a way, the appeals were dismissed in summary manner. This act is amounting to miscarriage of justice. This exercise of power at the end of the ld.CIT(A) is not in coherence with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act, therefore, ITAT set aside all these orders and restore all the issues in these three assessment years to the file of the Id.CIT(A) for deciding them on merit.
In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
