Sardarbhai Ramsangbhai Dhuliya , Palanpur V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Previously Ward-5, Palanpur

ITA 899/AHD/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0492 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-07-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIS.N.DIVETIA; SHRISANJAYJAIN; SHRIS.N; ADVOCATEDREWOUR; FORTHEASSESSEETOSETASIDETHE
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIS.N.DIVATIA; CALLINGINFORMATIONFROMTHEEMPLOYERTALUKA

Judgement Text

THEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD“SMC”BENCH Before:ShriRamitKochar,AccountantMember Sardarbhai RamsangbhaiDhuliya RajkamalSociety, DairyRoad, Palanpur, Banaskantha-385001 Gujarat PAN:AIUPD5410F (Appellant) v. TheIncomeTax Officer,Ward-1, (PreviouslyWard- 5),IncomeTax Office,1 st Floor, ShriHariComplex AbuHighway, Palanpur-385001 Gujarat (Respondent) Assesseeby:ShriS.N.Divatia,AR Revenueby:ShriSanjayJain,Sr.D.R. Dateofhearing:11-07-2024 Dateofpronouncement:02-08-2024 आदेश/ORDER ThisappealinITANo.899/Ahd/2023forassessment year2011-12isfiledbytheassesseebeforeIncomeTax AppellateTribunal,AhmedabadBench,Ahmedabad,which hasarisenfromtheappellateorderdated22-05-2023videDIN &OrderNo.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1053040290(1) ITANo.899/Ahd/2023 AssessmentYear2011-12 I.T.ANo.899/Ahd/2023A.Y.2011-12PageNo. SardarbhaiRamsangbhaiDhuliyav.ITO 2 passedbyld.CIT(A),NFAC,NewDelhiu/s250oftheIncome- taxAct,1961,whichinturnhasarisenfromtheassessment orderdated29-12-2018passedbylearnedAssessingOfficer u/s.144readwithSection147oftheIncome-taxAct,1961. 2.ThegroundsofappealraisedbytheassesseeinMemoof AppealfiledwiththeITAT,AhmedabadBench,Ahmedabad, readsasunder:- “[1]TheHon.CIT(A)wasgrievouslyerredinconfirmingtheadditionofRs. 20,51,500/-treatingtheamountasunexplainedmoneyu/s.69Aofthe Actthoughtheappellanthassubmittedalldetailsandprovedtheidentity ofcashdepositsandgenuinenessofthetransaction. [2]TheHon.CIT(A)wasalsogrievouslyerredinconfirmingtheadditionof Rs.21,746/-beingtheinterestandcommissionincomewhicharenot offeredfortaxationthoughtheidentityandproofshavebeensubmitted duringtheproceedingsoftheassessment. [3]TheHon.CIT(A)wasgrievouslyerredinconfirmingthetotaladditionof Rs.20,73,246/-thoughtheappellanthasofferedalldetails,hencethe assessmentmadeisbadinlawandrequiredtobecancelled. [4]TheLd.A.O.hasleviedtheinterestu/s.234AofRs.4,31,423/-and interestu/s.234BofRs.4,35,979/-whicharerequiredtobedeleted lookingtotheoutcomeofthissecondappeal. [5]TheappellantthereforerequestsyourHonourtokindlydeletethe abovementionedadditionofRs.20,73,246/-lookingtothemeritsofthe case. [6]Theappellantcravesleavetoadd,amend,alter,edit,delete,modifyor changealloranyofthegroundsofappealatthetimeoforbeforethe hearingoftheappeal.” I.T.ANo.899/Ahd/2023A.Y.2011-12PageNo. SardarbhaiRamsangbhaiDhuliyav.ITO 3 3.Attheoutset,theLd.Sr.Counselfortheassessee,ShriS.N. Divetia,Advocatesubmittedthatthisappealfiledbythe assesseeisbelatedlyfiledwithITATby111daysbeyondthe timeprescribedu/s253(3)ofthe1961Act.Theld.Sr. Counselfortheassessee,ShriS.N.Divetia,Advocatedrewour attentiontotheaffidavitdated04 th March,2024filedbythe assessee(whichisplacedonrecordinfile)prayingfor condonationofdelayof111daysinfilingthisappealbelatedly bytheassesseewithITAT.Itisaverredintheaforesaid affidavitthattheassesseeisaretiredemployeeofTaluka VikasKacheri,VadgamandhewasworkingasCircleInspector till30.09.2020.Itisaverredthattheassesseeisnotwell versedconversantwiththetaxproceedingsaswell technologicalaccesstobemade.ItisaverredthatintheIT Portal,emailregisteredwasofthestaffmemberofhis previoustaxconsultant.Hewasnotawareoftheassessment proceedingsgoingonanditisonlywhendemandnoticecame, hebecameawareoftheassessmentproceedings.InformNo. 35,emailIDofthetaxconsultantwasgivenwhowaslooking aftertaxmattertillhisretirement.Itwassubmittedthatitis onlywhenappealeffectorderwasreceivedgivingeffecttothe appellateorderofld.CIT(A),hecametoknowthattheappeal wasdismissedbyld.CIT(A)ex-partefornoncompliancesof thenotices.Itisfurtheraverredbytheassesseeinthe affidavit,thereafter,heimmediatelyapproachedChartered I.T.ANo.899/Ahd/2023A.Y.2011-12PageNo. SardarbhaiRamsangbhaiDhuliyav.ITO 4 AccountantwhofiledappealwithITAT.Itisaverredthatthe delayof111daysinfilingthisappealisneitherintentionalnor warranted.Theprayersaremadetocondonetheaforesaid delay,otherwisetheassesseewillsufferirreparableinjuryand loss.TheLd.Sr.D.R.ontheotherhandsubmittedthat departmentobjectstothecondonation,astheassesseewas awareoftheproceedingsgoingonagainsthim.After consideringtheentirematerialonrecord,Icondonethedelay asinmyconsideredview,theassesseehasshownsufficient andreasonablecauseinnotfilingthisappealwithintimeas stipulatedu/s253(3).Theuseoftechnologyisfastmaking inroadsinallthespheresoflife,whichisin-factbringingin efficiencyandeffectiveutilizationofresourcesforcommon good.Theproceedingsunderthe1961Actarenowdrivenby effectiveuseoftechnologyandAI.Thetechnologyitselfis changingveryfast,andtheoldtechnologybecomesobsoletein notime.Inthisfastchangingtechnologydrivenworld,some peopleespeciallyoldgenerationmaynotbeadaptabletothe newertechnologyatrapidpacevis-à-visnewgeneration.The assesseeisaretiredgovernmentemployee,andexplanation givenbyhimisaplausibleexplanation,andthedoorsof justicecannotbeshuttohimmerelybecausethereisdelayin filingthisappealbelatedlyby111days.Underthesefactsand circumstances,Iamoftheconsideredviewthattheassessee hasshownreasonableandsufficientcauseinfilingthisappeal I.T.ANo.899/Ahd/2023A.Y.2011-12PageNo. SardarbhaiRamsangbhaiDhuliyav.ITO 5 belatedlywithITATbeyondthetimestipulatedu/s253(3),and delayneedstobecondonedandtheappealbeheardonmerits. Whentechnicalitiesarepittedagainstthesubstantialjustice, theCourtswillleantowardsadvancementofsubstantial justiceratherthantechnicalities,unlessthemalafideonthe partoftheassesseeisatwritlarge.Underthefactsand circumstances,Idonotfindanymalafideonthepartofthe assesseeinfilingthisappealbelatedly,andintheinterestof justice,Icondonethedelayof111daysandproceedto adjudicatethisappealonmeritsinaccordancewithlaw. ReferenceisdrawntothedecisionofHon’bleSupremeCourt inthecaseofCollectorofLandAcquisition,Anantnagv. Mst.Katiji(1987AIR1353(SC)). 4.Thebrieffactsofthecasearethattheassesseehasnotfiled returnofincomefortheimpugnedassessmentyear,andthe nameoftheassesseeappearedintheNMSdatathatthe assesseehasnotfiledreturnofincome.Theinformationwas availableintheITSdatathattheassesseehadmadecash depositstothetuneofRs.14,46,320/-intimedepositscheme intheBankofIndiaandcommissionincomeofRs.19,990/- wasreceivedfromPACLIndiaLtd.Afterrecordingreasonsfor reopeningoftheassessmentthattheassesseehadnotoffered fortaxationamountofcashdepositandthecommission income,andafterobtainingapprovalfromthelearnedPr. I.T.ANo.899/Ahd/2023A.Y.2011-12PageNo. SardarbhaiRamsangbhaiDhuliyav.ITO 6 CIT-4,Ahmedabad,thecaseoftheassesseewasreopenedby theAO,andnoticeu/s.148dated28.03.2018wasissuedby theA.O.totheassessee,whichwasclaimedbytheA.O.to havebeendulyservedupontheassessee.Noreturnofincome wasfiledbytheassesseeinpursuancetothenoticeu/s.148 oftheAct.TheA.O.issuedfurthernoticesu/s.142(1)aswell asshowcausenotice,asdetailedhereunder: Sr.No.NoticeU/s.DateofIssueDateof Hearing Remarks 114828.03.2018within30 daysfromthe receiptofthe notice Noreturnof incomefiled tilldate 2142(1)28.03.201811.09.2018No compliance 3142(1)01.10.201810.10.2018No compliance 4142(1)26.10.201802.11.2018No compliance 5Showcause notice 01.12.201810.12.2018No compliance 6Final Opportunity 10.12.201816.12.2018No compliance 4.2.Theassesseefailedtofurnishreturnofincomewiththe A.O.inresponsetonoticeu/s.148,aswellnoreturnof incomewasfiledu/s.139oftheAct.Theassesseedidnot complywiththenoticesissuedbytheA.O.,andtheAO proceededtoframeex-partebestjudgmentassessmentby invokingprovisionsofSection144.TheAOalsoissuedSCNto theassessee.Theassesseefailedtocomplywithanyofthe I.T.ANo.899/Ahd/2023A.Y.2011-12PageNo. SardarbhaiRamsangbhaiDhuliyav.ITO 7 noticesissuedbytheAOincludingSCN.TheA.O.alsoissued noticeu/s.133(6)oftheActtoBankofIndia,andtheBankof Indiadulysubmittedthebankstatementsfortherelevant period.TheA.O.observedfromthebankstatementofBankof Indiaaccountnumber230010100024381thattherearetotal creditsinthisbankaccounttothetuneofRs.6,05,180/-and theinterestwascreditedinthisbankaccounttothetuneof Rs.1,756/-,andthesamewerenotofferedfortaxation.The AOobservedthatthetotalcreditsofRs.6,05,180/-andtime depositstothetuneofRs.14,46,320/-aggregatingtoRs. 20,51,500/-inBankofIndia,remainedunexplained,which stoodaddedbytheAOtotheincomeoftheassesseeu/s69A. Theassesseehasalsonotfiledanyreturnofincome.TheAO Alsoobservedthatcommissionincomereceivedbythe assesseetothetuneofRs.19,990/-andinterestincomeofRs. 1,756/-werealsonotofferedfortaxation,whichwerealso addedtotheincomeoftheassesseebytheAO.Accordingly, theassessmentwasfinalizedbytheA.O.u/s.144r.w.s.147 oftheAct,videreassessmentorderdated29.12.2018. 5.Aggrieved,theassesseefiledfirstappealwithLd.CIT(A). TheLd.CIT(A)issuedasmanyastennoticestotheassessee duringthecourseofappellateproceedings,asdetailedin appellateorderpassedbyld.CIT(A),buttherewasno compliancebytheassessee.TheLd.CIT(A)dismissedthe I.T.ANo.899/Ahd/2023A.Y.2011-12PageNo. SardarbhaiRamsangbhaiDhuliyav.ITO 8 appealoftheassesseeexparteinliminewherein reassessmentorderpassedbytheAOwasconfirmed/upheld bytheLd.CIT(A).TheLd.CIT(A)observedthattheassessee hasalsonotsubmittedanydetailedsubmissionsbeforethe A.O. 6.Stillaggrieved,theassesseehasnowfiledsecondappeal withtheTribunal.Onmerits,TheLd.SeniorCounselforthe assessee,ShriSNDivetia,Advocateappearedandsubmitted thattheassesseeisaGovt.EmployeeworkingatTalukaVikas KacherilevelasCircleInspector,andhewasnotawareofthe reassessmentproceedingsgoingonattheA.O.levelasthe emailidwasgivenofthetaxconsultantwhowasfilingthe returnofincomewhentheassesseewasworkingwith Government,andthesaidtaxconsultantneverinformed assesseeaboutthetax-proceedings.Itisonlywhenthe assessmentorderwithhugedemandwasreceived,thatthe assesseebecameawareoftheproceedings,andheappointed anothertax-consultanttofileappealwithld.CIT(A),andthe emailidofthetaxconsultantwasgiven,whonevercomplied withthenoticesofld.CIT(A)alsoneverinformedassessee abouttheproceedingsbeforeLd.CIT(A)whichledtothe dismissaloftheappealexpartebytheLd.CIT(A).Itwas submittedthatwhenappealeffectorderwasreceived,then theassesseecametoknowthattheappealbeforeld.CIT(A) I.T.ANo.899/Ahd/2023A.Y.2011-12PageNo. SardarbhaiRamsangbhaiDhuliyav.ITO 9 stooddismissed.Itwassubmittedthattheassesseecouldnot fileanyevidencesbeforethelowerauthorities,andItis submittedthattheassesseeisnowfilingadditionalevidences asperRule29ofIncomeTax(AppellateTribunal)Rules,1963. Itissubmittedthattheassesseehasfiledpaperbookbefore Tribunalcontaining65pages,whichareintheformof additionalevidences,andprayerweremadetoadmit additionalevidencesintheinterestofjustice.Theprayers werealsomadebyld.Counselfortheassesseetosetasidethe matterback,astheadditionalevidencesfiledbeforeITATfor thefirsttimerequiresverification.Onmerits,itwassubmitted byLd.Sr.Counselfortheassessee,ShriS.N.Divetia, AdvocatebeforetheBenchthattheassesseehasfiled StatementofFactsbeforetheTribunalanditwassubmitted thattheassesseereceivedRs.6,05,180/-asretirementbenefit whicharenottaxable.Itwasalsosubmittedthattheassessee hasnotdepositedanycashinthebankaccount,andA.O. erredinreopeningofassessmentbaseduponallegationof cashdepositofRs.14,46,320/-inthebankaccount,andlater ontheA.O.madetheadditionofRs.14,46,320/-withrespect totimedeposit.Itwassubmittedthatnofreshtimedeposit wastaken/madebytheassesseeduringtheyearunder consideration,andratherthesewereoldFDRswhichwere takenintheprecedingyears,whicheithermaturedduring theyearortheassesseegotitrenewedduringtheyearunder I.T.ANo.899/Ahd/2023A.Y.2011-12PageNo. SardarbhaiRamsangbhaiDhuliyav.ITO 10 consideration.Itwassubmittedthatthemattermaybeset asideforverificationoftheadditionalevidences.Ld.Sr.D.R. alsofairlyagreedthatthemattermaybesetasidefordo-novo considerationofthecontentionsandevidencesfiledbythe assessee. 7.Ihaveconsideredthecontentionsofboththepartiesand perusedthematerialonrecordaswelladditionalevidences filedbytheassessee.Thefactsareculledoutaboveinthe precedingpara’softhisorder,andarenotrepeated.Briefly stated,theassesseedidnotfileitsreturnofincomeu/s139. TheAOhadinformationthattheassesseehasnotfiledits returnofincomeu/s139,andthattherearecashdepositsto thetuneofRs.14,46,320/-inthebankaccountmaintained bytheassesseewithBankofIndia.TheAOinvokedprovisions ofSection147/148ofthe1961Act,andnoticeu/s148was issuedbytheAOrequestingassesseetofilereturnofincome inpursuancetonoticeu/s.148.Theassesseedidnotfile returnofincomeinpursuancetonoticeu/s148.TheAOalso issuedstatutorynoticesu/s142(1)fromtimetotime,butthe sameremaineduncompiledwithbytheassessee.SCNwas issuedbutstilltheassesseedidnotcomplywiththesame. TheAOcalledforbankstatementdirectlyfromtheBankof Indiabyissuingnoticeu/s133(6),andthebanksupplied bankstatementsfortherelevantperiod.TheAOmade I.T.ANo.899/Ahd/2023A.Y.2011-12PageNo. SardarbhaiRamsangbhaiDhuliyav.ITO 11 additionstothetuneofRs.6,05,180/-beingcreditsinthe saidbankaccountandalsoRs.14,46,320/-towardstime depositmadebytheassesseewiththebank,u/s69Aofthe 1961Act,asthesourcesofthesaiddepositsremained unexplained.TheAOfurthermadeadditionstothetuneof Rs.19,990/-towardscommissionincomeaswellinterest incometothetuneofRs.1,756/-,whichwerenotofferedby theassesseefortaxation,asnoreturnofincomewasfiled.The assesseefiledfirstappealwithld.CIT(A)andinstatementof fact,itisstatedthatRs.6,05,180/-creditedinthebank accountistowardsretirementbenefitreceivedwhichisnot taxable,andfurtherthetimedepositsweretakeninthe earlieryears.Theassesseedidnotenteredappearancebefore ld.CIT(A)whodismissedtheappealoftheassesseeinlimine withoutdecidingtheissuesonmerit,by upholding/confirmingthereassessmentorderpassedbythe AO.Theexplanationgivenbytheassesseeisthatheisretired governmentemployeeandtheemailoftheoldtaxconsultant whenhewasworkingwithgovernmentwasgivenwhonever informedabouttheassessmentproceedingsgoingonagainst theassessee.Theassesseeappointednewtax-consultantto fileappealbeforeld.CIT(A),whoalsodidnotcomplywiththe noticesissuedbyld.CIT(A)andneverinformedabout proceedingsbeforeld.CIT(A).Itissubmittedthatitisonly whentheorderswerereceivedraisinghugedemandagainst I.T.ANo.899/Ahd/2023A.Y.2011-12PageNo. SardarbhaiRamsangbhaiDhuliyav.ITO 12 theassessee,thentheassesseebecameawareofthe culminationandconclusionsofthesaidproceedingsagainst theassessee.Theassesseehasnowfiledsecondappealwith ITAT,andadditionalevidencesrunninginto65pagesarefiled. Itistruethattheassesseehasnotfiledanyreturnofincome u/s139orinresponsetonoticeissuedbytheAOu/s148.It isequallytruethattheassesseedidnotenteredappearance beforeauthoritiesbelow.Itisalsotruethatthereassessment proceedingswereinitiatedbyRevenueagainsttheassessee u/s147/148onthegroundsthattherewascashdepositsof Rs.14,46,320/-bytheassesseeinitsbankaccount,butthe assesseehasstatedthattherewasnocashdepositsofRs. 14,46,320/-madebytheassesseeinitsbankaccount,rather thesearetimedepositsmadeinprecedingyearswhichgot encashed/matured/renewedduringtheyearunder consideration,andnosuchcashwasdeposited.Withrespect toadditionsofRs.6,05,180/-asmadebytheAOand confirmedbyld.CIT(A),itisstatedbytheassesseethatheis retiredgovernmentemployeeandhereceivedretirement benefitfromgovernmentwhicharenottaxable.Theassessee hasexplainedhisreasonsfornonappearancebeforethe authoritiesbelow,aswelltheassesseehasnowfiled additionalevidencesu/r29ofIncomeTax(AppellateTribunal) Rules,1963.Theseadditionalevidencesgoestotherootofthe matterandIadmitthesame,butthesamerequires I.T.ANo.899/Ahd/2023A.Y.2011-12PageNo. SardarbhaiRamsangbhaiDhuliyav.ITO 13 verification/inquirybyauthoritiesbelow.Theobjectand mandateofthe1961Actistobringtotaxcorrectincomein thehandsofcorrecttax-payerforthecorrectassessmentyear sothatcorrectincomecanbebroughttotaxatcorrectrates andduetaxesarecollectedbyGovernmentfromthetax- payers,asareprovidedandmandatedundertheprovisionsof 1961Act.Theld.CIT(A)didnotdecidedtheissuesarisingin theappealofassesseeonmeritsasisrequiredu/s250(6), anddismissedtheappealoftheassesseeexparteinlimineon thegroundofnon-prosecutionbyholdingthattheassesseeis notinterestedinpersuingitsappeal.Even,ld.CIT(A)didnot deemitnecessaryand/orappropriatetocallforassessment recordsfromtheAOtoverifythecontentionsoftheassessee raisedinSOFfiledbeforeld.CIT(A)thattherewerenotime depositsmadebytheassesseeduringtheyearandratherthe timedepositsweretakenintheearlieryears.Noinformation werecalledbyld.CIT(A)fromthebankdirectly,toverifythe contentionsandclaimoftheassesseethattherewerenocash depositsofRs.14,46,320/-madebytheassesseeinitsbank accountduringtheyearunderconsideration,butthesewere timedepositstakenintheearlieryears.Withrespectto depositofRs.6,05,180/-inbankaccount,theclaimmadeby theassesseeinSOFfiledwithld.CIT(A)isthattheseare retirementbenefitsandthesameisnottaxable.TheAOhad allthedetailsoftheemploymentoftheassesseeinitsdata I.T.ANo.899/Ahd/2023A.Y.2011-12PageNo. SardarbhaiRamsangbhaiDhuliyav.ITO 14 basethatinay:2010-11,incometaxofRs.5,900/-was deductedbytheemployeru/s192(page40/PB),butno attemptwasmadebyld.CIT(A)toverifythecontentionsofthe assesseebycallinginformationfromtheemployerTaluka PanchayatOffice,Vadgam.Theld.CIT(A)didnotissuedany summonstotheassesseeu/s131toenforceattendance,nor verifiedthefactsdirectlyfromthebankratherdismissedthe appealoftheassesseeex-parteinliminewithoutdecidingthe issuesarisingintheappealonmeritsinaccordancewithlaw. Thepowerofld.CIT(A)areco-terminuswiththepowerof AssessingOfficerwhichevenincludespowerof enhancement(Section251(1)(a)).Theld.CIT(A)isrequiredto adjudicatetheissuesonmeritinaccordancewithlaw,asis providedu/s.250(6).Theld.CIT(A)hastostatepointfor determination,hisreasonsfordecisionandthedecision thereofasprovidedu/s250(6).TheCIT(A)haspowertomake suchinquiriesashethinksfitandmayalsodirectAOtomake suchenquiriesandreporttold.CIT(A),asisprovidedu/s 250(4),andtoadjudicateissuesarisingintheappealbefore himonmeritsinaccordancewithlaw.Thereareotherpowers vestedwithld.CIT(A)asisprovidedunderthe1961Act.The ld.CIT(A)hasnotrebuttedtheclaimoftheassessee,but dismissedtheappealoftheassesseeongroundofnon compliancewiththenoticesissuedbyld.CIT(A)byholding thattheassesseeisnotinterestedinprosecutingitsappeal, I.T.ANo.899/Ahd/2023A.Y.2011-12PageNo. SardarbhaiRamsangbhaiDhuliyav.ITO 15 andsimplyupheldtheadditionsasweremadebytheAO.The ld.CIT(A)isrequiredandobligatedtopassorderin compliancewiththeprovisionsofsection250(6),asldCIT(A) isrequiredtopassreasonedandspeakingorderonmeritsin accordancewithlaw,buttheappellateorderpassedbyld. CIT(A)isanonspeakingandnonreasonedappellateorder whichisnotincompliancewithprovisionsofSection250(6), andisliabletobesetaside.Theappellateorderpassedbyld. CIT(A)issubjecttofurtherappealwithITATu/s253.The appellateorderpassedbyITATissubjecttofurtherappeal beforeHon’bleHighCourtu/s260A.Thejudgmentandorder passedbyHon’bleHighCourtisalsosubjecttochallenge beforeHon’bleSupremeCourt.Thus,theappellateorder passedbyld.CIT(A)isnotafinalorder,asitissubjectto challengebeforehigherappellateauthority.Thus,Reasons whichweighedinthemindsoftheadjudicatingauthority whileadjudicatingappealonmeritsoftheissuearecardinal asthehigherappellateauthoritycanthenadjudicateappeal ontheissuesarisinginappealbeforethem,basedondecision andreasoningofld.CIT(A)indecidingtheissues.Iftheld. CIT(A)simplydismisstheappealmerelybecausetheassessee didnotappearbeforeld.CIT(A)ordidnotcomplywiththe notices,ex-parteinliminewithoutadjudicatingissuesarising intheappealonmerits,suchorderisnotsustainableinthe eyesoflawkeepinginviewprovisionsofSection250(6),and I.T.ANo.899/Ahd/2023A.Y.2011-12PageNo. SardarbhaiRamsangbhaiDhuliyav.ITO 16 alsohigherappellateauthoritieswillbedeprivedtoseewhat weighedinthemindoftheld.CIT(A)whileadjudicatingappeal asitwillbeanorderpassedwithoutreasoningontheissues onmerits.Itisequallytruethattheassesseealsodidnot compliedwiththenoticesissuedbytheAOaswellbyld. CIT(A),anddidnotfiletherequisitedetails/documentsto supporthiscontentions.Theassesseeisalsoequally responsibleforitswoes.Nowthattheassesseehasfiled additionalevidencesu/r29,whichstoodadmittedbymein theinterestofjustice.Underthesefactsandcircumstances andfairnessofboththeparties,intheinterestofjustice,the appellateorderofCIT(A)issetasideandthemattercango backtothefileofld.CIT(A)forfreshadjudicationoftheappeal oftheassesseeonmeritinaccordancewithlawaftergiving opportunitiestoboththeparties.Theld.CIT(A)shallpassthe appellateorderincompliancewiththeprovisionofsection 250(6)oftheActonmeritinaccordancewithlaw,insetaside proceedings,aftergivingopportunitytoboththepartiesin compliancewithprinciplesofnaturaljustice.Theassesseeon hispartisalsodirectedtocomplywiththedirection/noticesof CIT(A),andincaseoffailureoftheassessee,theld.CIT(A) shallbefreetopasssuchappellateorderasdeemedfitex- parteinaccordancewithlawonmeritsandaftercomplying withtheprovisionsofsection250(6)oftheAct.Thus,the matterisrestoredbacktothefileofld.CIT(A)forfresh I.T.ANo.899/Ahd/2023A.Y.2011-12PageNo. SardarbhaiRamsangbhaiDhuliyav.ITO 17 adjudicationoftheappealoftheassesseeonmeritin accordancewithlaw.IclarifythatIhavenotcommentedon themeritsoftheissuesintheappeal.Thus,theappealofthe assesseeisallowedforstatisticalpurposes.Iorderaccordingly. 8.Intheresult,theappealoftheassesseeinITANo. 899/Ahd/2023forassessmentyear2011-12isallowedfor statisticalpurposes. 9.Orderpronouncedon02 nd August,2024inaccordancewith Rule34(4)oftheIncome-taxAppellateTribunalRules,1963at Ahmedabad. Sd/- (RAMITKOCHAR) ACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad:Dated:02/08/2024