APARNA SAHA,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA, MALDA

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who filed her return of income under section 139(1) on 18.12.2020 showing total income of Rs.4,83,660/- after deduction of HBL interest under section 24(b) and also deduction under Chapter VIA. But while responding notice under section 139(9), the assessee had committed some mistakes due to oversite and her returned income shoot up to Rs.8,29,340/-. The appellant tried to rectify the mistake but could not do so on the plea that there was no mistake apparent from record. The ld. Assessing Officer assessed income at Rs.8,29,340/- instead of Rs.4,83,660/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).

The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assesese to substantiate its claim, but the appellant did not file the written submissions and did not represent the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal on 28th September, 2024.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.

At the time of hearing, it was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that ld. CIT(Appeals) did not consider the case on merit, rather he just upheld the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, he pleaded to delete the addition (A.Y. 2020-2021) Aparna Saha made by the ld. Assessing Officer as confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals).

At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to my notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order assessing the taxable income at Rs. 8,29,340/-. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. CIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee did not substantiate her claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in order to meet the principle of natural justice, and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same breath, I also hereby caution the assessee to promptly co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failing which the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merits based on the materials available on the record. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.