PREMKUMAR REDDY CHOWDAVARAM,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

We noticed with the able assistance coming from the learned departmental representative that Assessing Officer herein had framed his section 143(3) regular assessment on 26.12.2016 interalia adding interest income, unexplained investments u/s 69 taxed u/s 115BBE and short term capital gains of Rs.2,88,824/-, Rs.37,45,300/- and Rs.15,42,650/-; respectively.

The assessee preferred appeal. The CIT(A) has confirmed the Assessing Officer’s action by a totally non-speaking order as follows : “5. During the course of appeal proceedings, the AR of the appellant submitted only the bank account statement which was perused. But the appellant failed to produce substantial evidences to counter the grounds of appeal raised. Since the submissions of the appellant were verified and 1 am not in agreement with the appellant due to the detailed reasons mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, the addition made confirmed and the grounds of appeal are dismissed.”

5. It is therefore sufficiently clear that neither the learned CIT(A) has framed any points for determination nor has he adjudicated them in detail as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. We thus restore the assessee’s instant substantive grounds back to the CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.