ITA NO.4236/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4236/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 NEW JAIN GODOWN, VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, VILLAGE CHHATIYA, BUDAUN. KACCHLA ROAD, UJHANI, BUDAUN. (PAN: AAGFN0315H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI GUNJAN PRASHAD, CIT DR O R D E R PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, J.M. THIS APPEAL HAD BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BAREILLY, CAMP AT MORADABAD DATED 24.05.201 3 IN APPEAL NO. 316/ITO/BADAUN/2009-10 FOR AY 2007-08. 2. AT THE OUTSET, WE PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING EX-PA RTE ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION DATED 27.05.201 3 DULY RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CIT(A) ON 27.05.2013. ITA NO.4236/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 2 3. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NEITHER T HE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE US. ON BARE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, SPECIALLY IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED VIEW THAT THE APPEAL CAN BE ADJUDICATED AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. THERE FORE, WE PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. WE HAVE HEARD ARG UMENTS OF LD. DR AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON R ECORD. 4. FROM BARE READING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS AND SIMPLY HELD THAT THE APPEAL IS AN OLD PENDING CASE AND THERE HAS BEEN IN RESPON SE TO EIGHT NOTICES, ONLY ONE RESPONSE ON 10.3.2010 AND SUBSEQUENTLY NONE ATTENDE D THE PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. LD. DR SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUBMITTED THAT WHERE NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE HAS COME FORWARD TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS, THEN IN OLD PENDING APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS NO OPTION BUT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE DR FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE GROUND WISE AND SIMPLY ASSESSMENT O RDER HAS BEEN UPHELD BY WAY OF A BRIEF ORDER. 6. WITHOUT GOING INTO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE, SERVICE OF THE NOTICE AND RESPONSE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE NOTE THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS REPRESENTATIVE IS ABSENT DURING FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THEN ALSO IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL ON ALL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF ITA NO.4236/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 3 ASSESSMENT RECORD AND OTHER MATERIAL PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE APPEAL. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RESPONDED TO THE NOTICES ISSUED TO HIM AND, THEREFO RE, HE WENT ON TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE AO WITHOUT ANY DETAILED ADJUDICATION B Y HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER TO DIFFER IN ANY WAY WITH THE A OS ACTION AND THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO IN TOTO. 7. AS WE HAVE NOTED EARLIER, IT IS APPARENT FROM T HE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL IN A CRYPTIC MANNER WITHO UT ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN DETAIL AND WITHOUT EVEN ANALYSIN G THE ISSUES OR RECORDING HIS SPECIFIC FINDINGS ON THE SAID ISSUES RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE HIM. A MERE GLANCE AT THE IMPUGNED ORDER REVEALS THAT TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT ONLY CRYPTIC BUT GROSSLY VIOLATIVE OF ONE OF THE FACETS OF THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, NAMELY, THAT EVERY JUDICIAL/QUA SI-JUDICIAL BODY/AUTHORITY MUST PASS A WELL-REASONED ORDER ON ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE IT AND THE ORDER SHOULD REFLECT THE APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE CONCERNED AU THORITY TO THE ISSUES/POINTS RAISED BEFORE IT. 8. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE C ASE OF VODAFONE ESSAR LTD. VS DRP 196 TAXMAN 423 (DEL) HAS HELD THAT WHEN THE QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY DEALS WITH A CASE, THEN IT IS OBLIGATORY ON ITS PART TO ASCRIBE COGENT AND GERMANE REASONS AS THE SAME IS T HE HEART AND SOUL OF THE MATTER AND, FURTHER, THE SAME ALSO FACILITATES APPR ECIATION WHEN THE ORDER IS CALLED IN QUESTION BEFORE ANY HIGHER OR SUPERIOR FO RUM. WE MAY ALSO POINT OUT ITA NO.4236/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 4 THAT A DECISION DOES NOT MERELY MEAN THE CONCLUSION BUT IT EMBRACES WITHIN ITS FOLD THE REASONS FORMING THE BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSI ON. AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE ALSO RESPECTFULLY TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MUKHTIAR SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB (1995) 1 SSC 760(SC). 9. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) PASSED A B RIEF AND CRYPTIC ORDER WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES/GROUNDS RAISED BEFO RE HIM, THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED AGAI NST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE ENTIRE CASE IS RESTORED TO TH E FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION BY AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARIN G FOR THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. SINCE WE HAVE RESTORED THE FIRST APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A), THEREFO RE, OTHER GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE DO NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION AND WE DISMISS THE SAME. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.11.2014. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (CHANDRAMOHAN GAR G) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 28 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 GS ITA NO.4236/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2007-08 5 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER AS STT. REGISTRAR