AMARJEET KAUR W/O SH. BALKAR SINGH,KURUKSHETRA vs. ITO, WARD -1, KURUKSHETRA

PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 26.10.2023 passed for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The Registry has pointed out that present appeal is time barred by 123 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay. It emerges out from A.Y.2012-13 2

the record that appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) for want of prosecution. Neither its notice was served upon the assessee nor assessee could come to know about the status of the appeal. When her bank accounts were attached, only then she came to know about the dismissal of her appeal.
3. Considering this application for condonation of delay, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit.
4. The Assessing
Officer has made addition of Rs.53,09,200/- on account of alleged purchase of property whose sources are not being explained by the assessee. The assessment order is ex-parte. It does not exhibit which property was purchased and from whom it was purchased.
The AO hardly brought anything on the record for charging the assessee with tax liability.
5. Considering all these aspects, we deem it appropriate to set aside both the orders and restore this issue to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to give her latest e-mail address as well as postal address
A.Y.2012-13
3

and would participate with the AO in the denovo assessment proceedings. With the above observations, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
6. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 22.04.2025. (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL)
VICE PRESIDENT

“Poonam”

आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :

आदेशानुसार/ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार/