NIRMALA,SALEM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALEM

The A.O reopened the assessment on the ground that the assessee had purchased immovable property but has not filed the return of income. The A.O in the assessment order has made an addition of Rs.50,00,000/- treating the investment in the property as unexplained. Aggrieved by the said addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee did not respond to four notices issued. While dismissing the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. [38 ITD 320 (Del.)], without adjudicating the issues raised on merits.

The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R.) of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without affording sufficient opportunity of being heard. It was further submitted that Ld CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merit , one more opportunity may be granted to substantiate her case.

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has relied on the orders of lower authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding the appeal on merit ground wise relying on the case of Multiplan India Ltd (supra). As the Ld CIT(A) has not adjudicating the appeal on merit and the order is ex-parte, we are of the view that the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing to substantiate her case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail and furnish complete details for fresh consideration. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.