SMT. AMITA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHARATPUR

The hearing of the matter was scheduled for today through video conferencing in view of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic situation in the country. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, an adjournment application dated 14.07.2020 was received by the Registry stating that the assessee is exploring the possibility to opt for VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME 2020 and therefore matter may be adjourned. 2 Smt. Anita Sharma, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Bharapur 3. The ld. DR is heard who has drawn our reference to the order of ld. CIT(A) and submitted that ample opportunity has been provided by the ld CIT(A), however, there is totally no compliance to the notices issued by the ld CIT(A) and the matter has accordingly been decided by the ld CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO. It was further submitted that even before the Tribunal, the matter has been listed in the past, however, the authorized representative has sought adjournment from time to time and even today, when the matter was listed for hearing, request has been made for adjourning the matter stating that the assessee is exploring the possibility to opt for VSVS Scheme and there is nothing on record that whether the assessee has actually applied for such settlement scheme. It was accordingly submitted that more than adequate opportunity has been provided by the ld. CIT(A) and the Tribunal, no useful purpose would be served in providing further opportunity to the assessee. On merits, the ld DR supported the findings of the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions and pursued the material available on record. We find that the Assessing officer has passed the impugned order dated 15.12.2016 u/s 144 r/w 148 of the Act whereby addition of Rs 4,00,000/- has been made towards on-money payment and Rs 2,50,000/- towards unexplained loan transaction has been made and which has been confirmed by the ld CIT(A). No doubt, the matter has been listed for hearing before the ld CIT(A) on couple of occasions and has been adjourned by the ld CIT(A) and therefore, the matter has been decided ex-parte by the ld CIT(A). However, given that the assessee through her authorized representative has stated that she is contemplating filing an application under VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME in the near future and thus intend to end this litigation, we find that no useful purpose would be served in granting further adjournment in the matter and the adjournment application is hereby rejected. At the same time, given that the matter has not been decided on merits, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the 3 Smt. Anita Sharma, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Bharapur assessee, should the assessee wishes to avail of the same. This will not prejudice the right of the assessee in availing of the aforesaid settlement scheme as once the assessee decides to opt for the scheme and has taken necessary steps as so specified therein, she can bring the same to the notice of the ld CIT(A) who shall then decide and take appropriate action as per law.

With the aforesaid directions, the matter is set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A) who shall decide the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.