HARIKKISAN SHANKAR CHAVAN ,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 3(3), PUNE, PUNE

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld.CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that adequate opportunity was not granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Further, he has not passed a speaking order as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.

The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the above arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. She submitted that the assessee before the Assessing Officer did not make any submission to substantiate the source of investment in immovable property and cash deposits and other deposits in the bank account. Further, the assessee has not filed any submission before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC despite three opportunities granted and there was no compliance. Under these circumstances, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee be dismissed.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that despite service of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee did not file any return of income. In response to the notice u/s 144 issued by the Assessing Officer, the assessee made only part compliance and source of investment towards purchase of immovable property and deposit of cash in the bank account were not explained properly for which the Assessing Officer made the addition. We find since the assessee did not make any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC despite three opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has not adjudicated the issue on merit as prescribed under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which reads as under: “250(1). … (6) The order of the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”

Since it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and since the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has not decided the appeal on merit as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to decide the appeal on merit by passing a speaking order. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date and make his submissions, if any, without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.