SHRI R. MOHAN KUMAR,TRICHY vs. ITO, NCW - 7 (1), CHENNAI

At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee took me through the re-assessment order and read out the re- assessment order and stated that the re-assessment order is ex-parte framed u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and there is no discussion about the additions made apart from that the cash is deposited in the savings bank account of the assessee that is maintained with TamilNadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., amounting to Rs.20,15,000/-. He further took me through the order of the CIT(A) and stated that despite detailed submissions filed before CIT(A), the CIT(A) has simply brushed aside the submissions and dismissed the issue on merits as well as on legality on service of notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. He read out the decision of CIT(A) which is given in Para 6, which reads as under:- “6 Decision: a) The A.O.’s order and appellant’s submission are carefully considered. The fact that there is cash deposit to the tune of Rs.20,15,000/- is not denied. As far as the explanation that the same was deposited by appellant’s estranged wife is concerned, the same is difficult to accept, since there is no corroborative evidence in support of the same. This ground is liable to be dismissed.

3 b) As regards the issue of legality of service of notice u/s.147 of the Act, appellant claims that the same was done by affixture at the wrong address. It is claimed that the same is bad in law. However, it was the duty of the appellant to update the records with the I.T. Dept. and since this was apparently not done, the dept cannot be faulted for affixture at “wrong address”.

After hearing both the sides, I’m of the view that the principles of natural justice have been completely violated by the AO and moreover, the CIT(A) order is a non-speaking order. Hence, I set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remand the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication de-novo.