IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-2281/Del/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) Multiplex Capital Ltd., vs ITO, 100/28, Keshav Tower,Rajapur Market, Ward-5(4), Sector-9, Rohini,Delhi-110085. New Delhi. PAN-AAACM1761B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Ms. Aruna Mittal, CA Respondent by Sh.N.K.Bansal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 23.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement 18.10.2016 ORDER present appeal has been filed by assessee assailing correctness of order dated 23.02.2015 of CIT(A)-6, Delhi pertaining to 2011-12 assessment year. parties were heard only in respect to Ground No.2 & 3 raised in present appeal which reads as under:- 2. That order of Ld.CIT(A) dismissing appeal without allowing sufficient opportunity to appellant is bad in law and deserve to be set aside. 3. That Ld.CIT(A) ought to have passed order on merit of case instead of dismissing appeal summarily without referring assessment records, ground of appeal and statements of facts. 2. perusal of record shows that CIT(A) after noting that various notices had been issued to assessee in regard to which neither any adjournment petition was placed nor any one was present, dismissed appeal of assessee holding that assessee is not interested in prosecuting appeal. I.T.A .No.-2281/Del/2015 3. ld.AR has argued that impugned order deserves to be set aside. Ld.Sr.DR had no objection to said request. 3.1. I have heard rival submission and perused record. I find that mode of decision making adoption by ld.CIT(A) is not in conformity with Statutory Requirements as set out in sub-section (6) of section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961. same is reproduced hereunder for ready-reference:- PROCEDURE IN APPEAL 250. (1) . (2) (3) (4) . (5) . (6) order of Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of appeal shall be in writing and shall state points for determination, decision thereon and reason for decision. (6A) 3.2. It is seen that issue of addition by way of disallowance u/s 14A made by AO which was under challenge by assessee was not even addressed by ld.CIT(A) while passing order. In view of this blatant and glaring Statutory deficiency issue is set aside and restored back to CIT(A) with direction to pass speaking order in accordance with law after giving assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard in terms of statutory mandate. 4. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. order is pronounced in open court on 18th October 2016. Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar* Page 2 of 3 I.T.A .No.-2281/Del/2015 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT NEW DELHI Page 3 of 3 Multiplex Capital Ltd. v. ITO, Ward-5(4), New Delhi