SWATI GUPTA,TRANS YAMUNA COLONY, RAM BAGH, AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SANJAY PLACE, AGRA

That the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts to uphold the impugned order passed by the Ld. AD which was not in accordance with the Law.

That the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts to uphold the impugned addition of Rs.2,22,232/ made by the Ld. AD after treating the same as unexplained money u/s 69A, however the same was duly explained as part of stree-dhan of appellant.

That the Ld. Authorities has erred in law and on facts in upholding the impugned addition of Rs 2,22,232/- made by the Ld. AO without getting any adverse material in the documents/evidences submitted by the appellant and without considering the explanations, documentations and submissions of the appellant.

That the Ld. Authorities has erred in law and on facts in completing the proceedings in hasty manner without complying with the requirement of law and without taking proper approval.

That the Ld. Authorities has erred in law and on facts in charging interest of Rs. 41,275/- u/s 2348, and Rs.1,360/- u/s 234C of the 1.T Act 1961.

That the order is bad in law and against the facts of the case.

That any other relief or reliefs deemed fit in the facts and circumstance of the case may be granted.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for AY 2022-23 on 29.07 2022 declaring total income of Rs. 34,48,610/- u/s 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 06.02 2022 in the case of GT 2 | P a g e

Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld CIT(A), however, the assessee had not complied to various notices issued by ld. CIT(Appeals). Based on the material available with him, he completed the appeal proceedings and sustained the additions made by the AO. 4. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. At the time of hearing, Ld AR submitted that the assessee could not complied to the notice due to her personal reasons and prayed that Ld CIT(A) had not addressed the issue on merit and merely sustained the addition made by the AO. He submitted that only three notices were issued and assessee could have been given one more opportunity to submit the relevant informations. 6. On the other hand, Ld DR objected to the above submissions and submitted that the assessee had not utilized the opportunities given by the lower authorities, however, he has no objection to remit this issue back to the file of Ld CIT(A).

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. I observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non prosecution and non cooperation from the assessee side. Since the Ld CIT(A) had not addressed the issue on merit and also the assessee was not given opportunity to place the relevant record to make her case, I am inclined to remit this case back to the file of CIT(A) with the direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee for the sake of overall justice. It is needless to say that the assessee may be given proper opportunity of being heard. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.