AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1431
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred, both on facts and in law in disposing off the appeal ex-parte, despite the fact that the assessee has been appearing before him and has even filed the written submissions and paper book. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in holding that the assessee failed to appear on the date given as per the notice issued by him. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) without giving proper and adequate opportunity of being heard is bad and liable to be quashed. 5. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r dated 15.03.2016, dismissed the assessee's appeal without giving finding on merits of additions made by the AO. The relevant portion of the appellate order of Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced below:- 2. "The case was fixed for hearing on 24/11/2015 but nobody attended and finally a letter dated 15/12/2015 was sent seeking for some more time and the next date of hearing was fixed for 22/12/2015. Another application comes seeking for adjournment which was given to 28/12/2015. On 28/12/2015 another application was sent seeking more time, which was rejected. After that nobody attended and now I find that the appellant had quietly submitted the written submissions and paper book on 1/01/2016 and nobody came forward to discuss the same with me ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh order on merit. Ld. Departmental Representative (in short "DR") relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A). (C). We have heard both sides. We have also perused all materials on record carefully. In the case of Gaurav Goel vs ITO (supra), it was held by the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi as under:- "7. The Ld.DR. relied upon the order of CIT(A) and pleaded for its confirmation and mainly contended that assessee is habitual defaulter. He has not appeared before the Assessing Officer nor before the CIT(A) and his attitude has not changed even before the tribunal. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. 8. After hearing Ld.DR. and considering the material on record, we find that the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dicial body/authority must pass reasoned order, which should reflect application of mind by the concerned authority to the issues/points raised before it. The application of mind to the material facts and the arguments should manifest itself in the order. Section 250(6) of the Act mandates that the order of the CIT(A) while disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. The requirement of recording of reasons and communication thereof by the quasi- judicial authorities has been read as an Integral part of the concept of fair procedure and is an important safeguard to ensure observance of the rule of law. It introduces clarity, checks t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the point for decision for want of clarity in a decision undoubtedly puts a party in quandary. Sec. 250(6) expressly embodies the principles of natural justice and such a provision is clearly mandatory in nature. The impugned order passed by the CIT(A) in violation of the provisions of s. 250(6) cannot, therefore, be sustained. Regarding the decisions of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Multiplan India Ltd. (supra) cited by the learned CIT(A), we find That the said decision is clearly distinguishable. Sec 254 referring to the orders of the Tribunal confers plenary jurisdiction on the Tribunal in the matter of passing orders under s. 254(1). There is no such express stipulation in s. 254 as contained under the provisions of s. 250(6) re....