IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 855/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI MANPREET SINGH, VS THE ITO , # 664, PSB OFFICERS COOP.HB SOCIETY, WARD 5(3), SECTOR 49-A, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: BQIPS0962A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI JASPAL SHARM A RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH,DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.08.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-2 CHANDIGARH DATED 28.04. 2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 6 DAYS. THE ASSESS EE IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY EXPLAINED THAT THE PAPERS WERE HANDED OVER TO THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT SHRI RAJIV GUPTA WHO FORGOT TO TAKE ACTION IN THE MATTER AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS MIXED UP WITH SOME OTHER ROUTINE PAPERS. THE LD. DR HAS NO OBJECTION FOR CONDONATIO N OF NOMINAL DELAY. 2 3. CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, I A M SATISFIED THAT ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITAT ION. THE NOMINAL DELAY OF SIX DAYS IS ACCORDINGLY CONDONED. 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT MANY TIMES, NOTICE HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH ADJOURNMENT REQUEST HAVE BEEN MADE BY HIS COU NSEL AND ULTIMATELY ASSESSEE WAS STATED TO HAVE GONE ABR OAD AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS REFUSED TO TAKE NOTICE, TH EREFORE, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF THE VIEW MATTER REQUIRES RE-CONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF TH E LD. CIT(APPEALS). IT IS NOT A DENYING FACT THAT ASSESS EE DID NOT COOPERATE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFOR E LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN FINALIZATION OF THE MATTER. THE CO NDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS COUNSEL WAS NOT PROPER BECAUSE THEY WERE MAKING REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT ONLY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE APPEARING BEFORE ME UNDERTAKEN THA T ASSESSEE WOULD NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT IN THE MATT ER AND SHALL COOPERATE WITH THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN FI NALIZATION OF THE MATTER. 6. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CONSIDERING TH E IMPUGNED ORDER, I FIND THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS), DESPI TE ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPERATE WITH HIM, DID NOT PASS A NY REASONED ORDER. ACCORDING TO SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS REQUIRED TO PASS REASO NED ORDER 3 DECIDING THE ISSUES IN THE APPEALS BEFORE HIM EVEN IF ASSESSEE APPEARS BEFORE HIM OR NOT. SINCE NO REASO NED ORDER HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE REFORE, MATTER REQUIRES RE-CONSIDERATION AT HIS LEVEL. I, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTO RE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(APPEA LS) WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STRIC TLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) SHALL GI VE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. ASSESSEE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT IN THE MATT ER AS UNDERTAKEN BEFORE ME. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT EVEN I F ASSESSEE MAY NOT APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, LD. CIT(APPEALS) SHALL PASS REAS ONED ORDER DECIDING THE ISSUES ON MERITS. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS AND DIRECTIONS, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29 TH AUGUST,2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH