IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER A ND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.A. NOS.512 TO 515/DEL/2018 AND ITA NOS. 7656 TO 7659/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 TO 2015-16 M/S. ADVANCE STEEL TUBES LTD., 45/3, INDL. AREA SITE-4, SAHIBABAD, GHAZIABAD.(PAN AACCA6765B (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER (TDS) GHAZIABAD. (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY SH. RAJESH MALHOTRA, C.A. RE SPONDENT BY SH. S.R. SENAPATI, SR. DR ORDER PER BENCH: WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH T HE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 2. WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES, THE APPEAL S ARE BEING DECIDED ALONG WITH THE STAY APPLICATIONS. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOUR APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, NOIDA DATED 27.10.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13, 2013- 14, 2014-15 AND 2015-16 AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED U /S. 201(1A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. DATE OF HEARING 20.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20.07.2018 ITA NOS. 7656 TO 7659/DEL/17 & SA NOS. 512 TO 515/D EL/18 2 4. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED CERTAIN DATES OF HEARING IN THE APPELLATE ORDER, ON WHICH THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO T INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEALS. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN IRREGULARITIE S AND NON-COMPLIANCE OF LAW REGARDING OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX WERE FOUND A ND THE ASSESSEE FILED NO EXPLANATION FOR THE SAME. THE LD. CIT(A), ACCORDING LY, DISMISSED ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF LD. CIT(A). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LASTLY, THE ASSESSEE MO VED FOR ADJOURNMENT, WHICH WAS NOT GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THUS, T HERE IS NO NON- COMPLIANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO SUBMIT TED THAT ALL THE CHALLANS AND BILLS ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HE IS WILLING TO PRODUCE ON RECORD. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS N O VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF LAW. THEREFORE, THE DEMAND IS NOT JUST IFIED. ACCORDING TO SECTION 250(6) OF THE IT ACT, THE LD. CIT(A) IS REQ UIRED TO GIVE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION AND REASONS FOR DECISION IN THE APPEL LATE ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) INSTEAD OF FOLLOWING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, HAS DISMISSED THE APPEALS FOR DEFAULT ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE. PERHAPS, THERE MAY NOT BE ANY DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, AS NOTHING IS ATTRIBUTED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. 6. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE IMP UGNED ORDERS AND RESTORE ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A)-I, NOIDA WITH THE ITA NOS. 7656 TO 7659/DEL/17 & SA NOS. 512 TO 515/D EL/18 3 DIRECTION TO DECIDE ALL THE APPEALS ON MERITS STRIC TLY AS PER LAW BY GIVING POINTS FOR DETERMINATION AND REASONS FOR DECISION A FTER GIVING REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AS SESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE STAY APPLICATIONS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (L.P. SAHU) (BHAVNESH SA INI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20 TH JULY, 2018 *AKS* COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI