RAJENDRASINGH YADAV,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3), PUNE

The first ground raised in all these appeals is against the ld. CIT(A) not giving any decision on the ground of reopening of the reassessment u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’).

Brief facts of the case for the A.Y. 2007-08 are that the assessee was found to have forwarded loan of Rs.28,67,288/- to M/s Choudhary Attarsingh Yadav Memorial Education Trust (CAYMET). It was observed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. In pursuance to the same, the assessee filed a return of income declaring total loss of Rs.7,95,952/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment at total income of Rs.14,38,950/-.

Facts of the other appeals are mutatis mutandis similar. The assessee filed appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The first ground raised in the Form No.35 challenged the initiation of the reassessment. The ld. CIT(A) decided the appeals on merits without adjudicating on the first ground taken by the assessee for all the years under consideration against the initiation of reassessment. The assessee is aggrieved by the non- adjudication of such first ground by the ld. CIT(A).

I have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. These appeals were fixed for hearing for first time on 03.09.2019. In the absence of the assessee putting in appearance, the matter was adjourned to 05.09.2019. On that date, again the assessee was also absent. Thereafter, certain notices were issued. The last notice sent to the assessee fixing hearing for today has again remained uncomplied with. As such, I am proceeding to dispose of the appeals ex-parte qua the assessee.

From the narration of the facts above, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer initiated the reassessment proceedings for the years under consideration and made certain additions. The assessee challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) without adjudicating such legal ground, proceeded to dispose of the grounds on merits by confirming certain additions against which the assessee filed the further appeals. Since the main legal ground taken by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) remained un- disposed, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A). I order accordingly and direct him to dispose the first ground taken before him in all the appeals and then proceed on merits.

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.