NEHA KATYAL,MAHARASHTRA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2, NOIDA UP

ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 31/08/2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-I, Noida [in short the Ld. CIT(A)] for assessment year 2010-11 raising following grounds: 1) The Honb’le Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the reopening of the case u/s 148 by the Ld. Assessing Officer as the reassessment is bad in law. Therefore, the order passed by the Honb’le CIT (A) is liable to be set aside.

2) a) The Honb’le Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the order passed by the Ld Assessing Officer u/s 147/144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without giving an opportunity to the assessee to furnish details as the notice for reassessment was not served to the assessee. b) The appellant prays that therefore the order passed by the Honb’le. CIT (A) is liable to be set aside as it is against the principles of law and natural justice. 3) a) The Honb’le Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in appellant’s hands as the same was already offered to tax in her husband’s hands in the said assessment year. b) The appellant prays that therefore the order passed by the Honb’le. CIT (A) is liable to be set aside as it is against the principles of law and natural justice. 4) The Honb’le Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in stating in his order that only form 35 is available on the departmental website. Whereas the assessee has submitted all requisite documents as a part of miscellaneous attachment option available while filing the appeal on the departmental website. The same are all visible on the portal. Therefore, the order is passed by the Honb’le CIT (A) in a very casual manner and is liable to be set aside. 5) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee since no notices fixing the date of the hearing were served upon the assessee either physically or electronically upon the assessee, therefore the order passed by the Honb’le. CIT (A) is liable to be set aside. 6) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in stating in his order that the notices were sent to the address mentioned in Form 35 by the assessee. The address quoted in the order by the Honb’le CIT (A) thereof and that actually mentioned by the assessee in the Form 35 for the purpose of serving the notices are different. Therefore, the order is passed by the Honb’le CIT (A) in a very casual manner and is liable to be set aside. 7) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not appreciating the fact the appeal fees of Rs. 1000/- was already paid before filing of appeal before the good-self and challan for the same was already submitted at the time of filing the appeal and has, yet stated that the requisite fees has not been paid. Therefore, the order is passed by the Honb’le CIT (A) in a very casual manner and is liable to be set aside. 8) The appellant prays to add, amend 85 alter above mentioned grounds of appeal.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessment in the case was reopened by way of issue of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) on 31/03/2017 in view of the cash deposit in bank account. No compliance was made by the assessee of notice under section 148 of the Act as well as subsequent notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Hence, the assessment was completed as best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Act on 24/11/2017 after making addition for cash deposits of ₹ 10,72,360/-. 2.1 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), but notices issued by the learned CIT(A) to the assessee and sent by post were returned back with the remark that the assessee left the premises. The Ld. CIT(A) held it to be a valid service and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without any decision on merit. No evidence was also filed by the assessee for payment of the appeal fee. Aggrieved with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds as reproduced above.

3. Before us, none attended on behalf of the assessee and thus, the appeal is decided on the basis of the arguments by learned DR. 4. We have heard submission of the learned DR and perused relevant material on record including order of the lower authorities. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-representation by the assessee, without giving any reason for arriving decision on merit. In our opinion, in terms of section 250(6) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order on merit of the issue-in-dispute despite no-representation by the assessee. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the finding of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both the assessee and the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the ground raised

by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court.