Facts of the case:
- The Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned orders ex parte on the ground that
the assessee did not show any interest in prosecuting the matter.
- it is submitted by Ld. AR that the Ld. CIT(A) did not advert to the merits of the case and therefore the impugned order also cannot be sustained and it may also be necessary to consider the need to remand the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to pass the order on merits..
- It could be seen from the impugned orders, Ld. CIT(A) drew an inference that the assessee does not seem to have any interest in proceeding with the appeals to get them disposed of on merits inasmuch as the assessee does not respond to the notices issued for hearing of the matter.
- In none of the appeals Ld. CIT(A) made a reference to the merits of the case, though he recorded that he decided to dispose of the appeals on the basis of the material available on record. He simply recorded, without going into the merits, that he had no reason to interfere with the stand taken by the
learned Assessing Officer.
- What is recorded by the ld. CIT(A) is the conclusion but not the reasoning. Reasoning is the lifeblood of any order of the judicial or quasijudicial authority so as to enable the appellate authorities to verify the soundness of the reasoning to decide whether any interference by the appellate authorities is warranted
- Ld. CIT(A) merely recorded the conclusions but does not record the reasons, and therefore, it is not available on record whether the reasons are proper or perverse.
Held: Merely recording of the conclusion and not the reasoning makes the order of the CIT(A) invalid and the same transfered back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.