IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI

  BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A.No.344/Del/2012

Assessment Year : 2006-07

Smt. Zeenat Begum, Madarsa Kohna,

Rampur (U.P.). PAN: AHMPB7675M

(Appellant)

Vs.

Income-tax Officer-II, Rampur.

(Respondent)

                 Appellant   by  : None                                       

                 Respondent by : Mrs. Meeta Sinha, Sr. DR

O R D E R

PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 4.10.2011 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bareilly pertaining to the Assessment Year 2006-07 raising various grounds on facts and merit.

2.       At the time of hearing no one was present on behalf of the assessee despite the fact that notice for the date of hearing had been issued on 28.05.2012.  However, on a perusal of the impugned order it was considered appropriate to decide the present appeal ex parte qua the assessee-appellant  on merit after hearing the learned DR.

3.       The relevant facts borne out from the assessment order are that as against the returned income of Rs.89,130/- the income was assessed at Rs.6,18,135/- wherein the Assessing Officer made additions on account of undisclosed capital gain; unexplained agricultural income and income from other sources. 

4.       Aggrieved by this the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who after making various efforts to serve the notice upon the assessee which remained un-complied with on all occasions except one i.e. on 26^th March, 2010, the date on which adjournment was sought, proceeded to dispose of the appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee was not keen to pursue the appeal.  In the circumstances, relying upon the decisions in the cases of B.N. Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 (SC); Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar, 223 ITR 480 (MP); & New Diwan Oil Mills (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P&H), the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on the specific ground that the assessee had failed to attend the appeal proceedings.

5.       We have heard the submissions advanced by the Sr. DR and considered the orders of the authorities below.  On a careful consideration of the same we are of the view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside as the same is not in conformity with the requirements of the provisions of law as the conclusion in upholding the assessment order is not supported by any reasoning.  Recording of reasons is a part of fair procedure as reasons are the harbinger between the mind of the maker of the decision in the controversy and the decision or conclusion arrived at.  They substitute subjectivity with objectivity and failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice, as has been held by the Apex court in the case of Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. CIT (2005) 273 ITR 56 (SC).  Reasons however brief are the soal and backbone of the order.  A perusal of sec. 250(6) of the Act shows that the statute mandatorily requires the CIT(A) while deciding the appeal to set out the issues for determination; and the decision thereon along with reasons for the decision.  The said exercise which is necessary is missing in the impugned order.  In the light of the above peculiar facts, circumstances and position of law, we are of the view that the action of the CIT(A) was not in conformity with the requirements of the Income-tax Act.  Accordingly it is considered appropriate to restore the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to decide the appeal by way of a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 

6.       In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.       The order was pronounced in the Open Court on the date of hearing i.e. 16^th October, 2012.

                   Sd/-                                                               Sd/-

         (T.S. KAPOOR)                                              (DIVA SINGH)

   ACCOUNTANT MEMER                                 JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 16^th October, 2012.

Copy of the order forwarded to:-

1.     Appellant

2.     Respondent

3.     CIT

4.     CIT(A)

5.     DR                                                   

By Order

*mg                                                   Deputy Registrar, ITAT.

1. Date of dictation – 16/10/2012 & 17/10/2012
2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 16/10/2012  & 17/10/2012.   Other Member………………..
3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S…………
4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement …………...
5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S.19/10/2012.
6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 19/10/2012.
7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk ……………….
8. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order ………………………
9. Date of Despatch of the Order …………………..