KAVITA AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD-2(2)(1), KANPUR

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 08/07/2024 passed by the learned Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bengaluru [hereinafter referred as “the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”), for the assessment year 2012-13. The grounds of appeal

of the assessee are as under: -

1. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in law in making the above addition since the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act as they stood during the A.Y. 2012-13 did not taxed the difference of the Stamp Duty Value over the Purchase Price of the Immovable property.

Page 2 of 4 3. That the Provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) as they stood during the A.Y. 2012-13 taxed the stamp duty value of the immovable property only if the immovable property was purchased without consideration.

on/or before hearing of appeal other reliefs as your honour may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. In this case, assessment order dated 09/12/2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”), u/s 144/147 of the Act whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.31,25,780/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, addition of Rs.27,50,000/- was made u/s 69B of the Act on account of unexplained source of investment made by the assessee. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment order by the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 08.07.2024. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 08.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A).

3. At the time of hearing, there was no representation from the side of the appellant assessee. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, the Ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue was heard. On perusal of the impugned appellate order dated 08/07/2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), it Page 3 of 4 is found that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal for want of prosecution, taking adverse view of non-compliance with notices issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) has statutory duty, prescribed u/s 250(6) of the Act to pass a speaking order on the merits of the case, whether or not there was any representation from the assessee’s side. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) in disposing of the assessee’s appeal, is required to be in writing, and the order is further required to contain the point for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Thus, it is the statutory duty of the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on merits of the case. The failure of the Ld. CIT(A) to ensure compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act, in both letter and spirit, was erroneous on his part. Further, the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) failed to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee before passing their respective exparte orders. The Ld. Departmental Representative was of the opinion, at the time of hearing that the issues in dispute may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass denovo order on merits.

3.1 In view of the foregoing, and as Departmental Representative for Revenue is in agreement with this, in the specific facts and circumstances of the present case before us; the impugned order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), dated 08/07/2024 is hereby set aside and issues in dispute regarding addition made in the assessment order are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass denovo assessment order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. All grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid direction.