SMT.SULOCHANA PRAVIN SASTE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(4), PUNE

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 13-12-2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 68 days. Upon hearing ld. DR, we find that the delay of 68 days is saved by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed during National Lockdown imposed on account of pandemic Covid-19. Therefore, the delay of 68 days is condoned.

The ld. AR, Shri Hari Krishan filed an adjournment application dated 08-09-2022 requesting to adjourn the present appeal to any date explaining the reason that he will not to be able to reach the office of the Tribunal from his residence which is located on the Ganesh Visarjan route. As noted above and an examination of record, we note that the assessee was not properly represented before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non-appearance of assessee. Therefore, considering the same and in view of issue may have to be remanded to the file of CIT(A), the adjournment application is rejected. Thus, we proceed to hear the ld. DR and perused the material available on record.

We note that the assessment order was completed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. It is observed from the assessment order that the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on receiving information on AIMS module/ITD system regarding cash deposits and term deposits made by the assessee in F.Y. 2012-13 relating to the assessment year under consideration. The AO was of the belief of that the assessee did not file any return of income and the cash deposited escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. We note that in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act no return of income filed. The AO also issued notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act but no response from the assessee to that effect, therefore, having no option except to complete assessment u/s. 148 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. The AO proceeded to make additions on account of unexplained cash deposits, unexplained investment and interest income on term deposits and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.57,29,555/-. Having aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). On an examination of impugned order at Para 1.4 we note that the CIT(A) issued notice to the assessee intimating the date of hearing and requesting the assessee to prosecute the grounds raised before him. We note that inspite of the said notice no appearance was made before the CIT(A) which resulted in passing of ex- parte order for non-prosecution. We note that as discussed above, the AO made additions on account of unexplained cash deposits, unexplained investment and interest income on term deposits and in our opinion, requires assistance of the assessee in support of her claim. Since, there was no evidence filed before the AO nor CIT(A), in our opinion, one more opportunity should be given to the assessee in the interest of justice. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the issue to the file of CIT(A). The assessee is liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of her claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.