2015 (1) TMI 1469

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ry outset, has drawn our attention towards operative paragraph 8 and 9 of the impugned order and submitted that the CIT(A) passed ex parte order without affording due opportunity of hearing for the assessee and placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs CWT 223 ITR 480(MP). Ld. Counsel further contended that as per service of notice as noted by the CIT(A) in para 4.1, a notice dated 15.10.12 was issued to the assessee fixing the date of hearing on 6.11.2012 and CIT(A) in the remarks column mentioned that "none attended nor any submissions filed nor any request for adjournment made" and placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (sup....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....IT(A) observed that none attended nor any submission filed nor any request for adjournment was made and the CIT(A) decided the appeal ex parte with following brief, cryptic and slipshod observations and conclusion:- "8. From the above, it can be seen that the additions/disallowances made by the ld. AO are well reasoned out and are on sound footing. It is further seen that the appellant was duly confronted by the ld. AO during the assessment proceedings on the issues under consideration and its failure to furnish the information/evidences called for led to the additions which have been made in accordance with the law. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the action of the AO in making such additions/disallowances. 9. Under these c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bviously enable a party to know precise points decided in his favour or against him. Absence of the formulation of the point for decision for want of clarity in a decision undoubtedly puts a party in quandary. Section 250(6) expressly embodies the principles of natural justice and such a provision is clearly mandatory in nature. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) cannot, therefore, be sustained. Regarding the decisions of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Multiplan India (p.) Ltd.'s case (supra) cited by the ld. CIT(A), we find that the said decision is clearly distinguishable. Section 254 referring to the orders of the Tribunal confers plenary jurisdiction on the Tr....