, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 120 TO 122/AHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-2006, 2009-10 AND 2010-11 HAZIRA LNG P.LTD. 101/102, ABHIJEET-II NR. MITHAKHALI CIRCLE NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD. PAN : AAACH 9143 C VS ITO (INTL. TAXATION)-II AHMEDABAD. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VARTIK CHOKSHI, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI V.K. SINGH, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 01/01/2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 /01/2018 PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: PRESENT THREE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST COMMON ORDER OF LD.CIT(A)-13, AHMEDABAD DAT ED 3.12.2015 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2005-06, 2009-10 AND 2010 -11. 2. FACTS ON ALL VITAL POINTS ARE COMMON IN THESE AS SESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, WE TAKE UP TH E FACTS FROM THE ASSTT.YEAR 2005-06. 3. IT EMERGES OUT FROM RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCOUNTED A SUM OF RS.2,14,90,194/- AS REMITTANCES MADE TO M/S.DATA STRAM SYSTEMS P.LTD. THESE REMITTANCES WERE MADE FOR PURCHASES AN D INSTALLATION OF ITA NO. 120 TO 122 /AHD/2016 - 2 - PACER SOFTWARE UNDER A CONTRACT FOR SALE. THE LD.A O WAS OF THE OPINION THAT PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS IN TH E NATURE OF ROYALTY, AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE DEDUCTED TAX. THE LD.AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT AND U LTIMATELY TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS ASSESSEE-IN-DEFAULT. HE IMPOSED INTERE ST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED ALL APPEALS BY WAY O F A COMMON ORDER BY RECORDING A BRIEF FINDING, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 4. SINCE IN MY VIEW REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIV EN TO THE APPELLANT TO REBUT THE ORDER U/S.201 & 201(1A) BY TH E AO, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUI NG THE APPEALS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE AO AS IT IS. ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE DISMISSED. 5. IT IS PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT BEFORE ADJUDICAT ION OF APPEALS, THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (A) LISTED THESE APPEA LS FOR HEARING ON SIX OCCASION. ACCORDING TO THE LD.CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON TWO-THREE OCCASIONS AND DID NOT TURN UP IN RESPO NSE TO NOTICES IN OTHER OCCASIONS. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED APPEA LS WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE ISSUE. 6. SUB-SUBSECTION (6) OF SECTION 250 CONTEMPLATES T HAT THE LD.CIT(A) WOULD STATE POINTS IN DISPUTE, AND THEREAFTER RECOR D REASONS IN SUPPORT OF HER CONCLUSIONS ON THOSE POINTS. STATEMENT OF F ACTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING INTO 30 PAGES DEALING WITH ALL ASPECTS, BUT NO COGNIZANCE WAS TAKEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) OF THE STATEM ENT OF FACTS. IT SUGGESTS THAT ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT IN COHEREN CE WITH POSITION OF LAW CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT. THEREFO RE, THE ORDER OF THE ITA NO. 120 TO 122 /AHD/2016 - 3 - LD.CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND ALL THESE APPEALS ARE RE STORED TO FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 7. IN ORDER TO AVOID FUTURE NON-COMPLIANCE AT THE E ND OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO AP PEAR BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM RECEIPT OF THIS ORD ER AND FILE AN APPLICATION FOR TAKING UP THESE APPEALS. THE LD.CI T(A) SHALL FIX THE DATE OF HEARING ON THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE SO TH AT GRIEVANCE OF THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ATTENDING HEARIN G COULD BE AVOIDED. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THESE APPEALS ARE ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST JANUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED, 01 /01/2018