IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 639/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 HARYANA STATE ROAD & VS THE DCIT, BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORP LTD., PANCHKULA CIRCLE, BAY NO. 13-14, SECTOR 2, PANCHKULA. PANCHKULA. PAN: AAACH9435M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARRY RIKHY RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 26.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.10.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) PANCHKULA DATED 01.04.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. EARLIER THIS APPEAL WAS DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT VI DE ORDER DATED 13.10.2014. THE ASSESSEE FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION EXPLAINING REASONS FOR NO N- APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING WHICH IS ALLOWED AND APPEAL IS FIXED FOR HEARING ON MERITS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES. 2 4. THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON DATED 01.04.2013, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL IN THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL ON 01.07.2014. THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO. 9 OF FORM 36 HAS MENTIONED THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION OF THE ORDER APPEALED AS 14.05.2014. THE OFFICE NOTE D THAT APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 382 DAYS. THE ASSESS EE FILED APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY EXPLAINI NG THEREIN THAT ON FINAL DATE OF HEARING, NO NOTICE HA S BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AN D ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED EX-PARTE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECE IVE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THEREFORE, APPLIED FOR COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN SUPPLIED ON 14.05.2014. THUS, THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED IN FIL ING APPEAL. THE LD. DR PRODUCED THE RECORD AND SUBMITT ED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD OF RE CEIPT OF IMPUGNED ORDER BY ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 2013. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSE E IS ABLE TO EXPLAIN DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BECAUSE EARLIER THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS NOT RECEIVED IN THE YEAR 201 3 AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE ON 14.05.2014 WHEN ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR COPY OF THE SA ME. THE DELAY, IF ANY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS THEREFORE , CONDONED. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES ON MERITS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW MATTER REQUIRES RE-CONSIDERATION AT THE LE VEL OF LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED GROUN DS OF 3 APPEAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND CERTAIN DATES FIXE D FOR HEARING BEFORE HIM ON WHICH DATES, NONE ATTENDED TH E APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM. THE LD. CIT(APPE ALS), THEREFORE, IN DEFAULT OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO SECTION 250(6 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS REQUIRED TO PASS THE IMPUGNED ORDER GIVING REASONS FOR DECISION IN T HE SAME. THEREFORE, EVEN IF ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR B EFORE HIM ON THE DATE SO FIXED, LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS REQU IRED TO PASS THE ORDER ON MERIT GIVING REASONS FOR DECIS ION IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, W E SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) WITH DIREC TION TO RE-DECIDE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW GIVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAINI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27 TH OCTOBER, 2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD