RAVINDER MANOJKUMAR GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: 1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [hereinafter, “the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), for the assessment year 2017-18 wherein, the assessee’s appeal has been dismissed in limine for the reason of non compliance. The grounds of appeal

of the assessee are as under: -

1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition made by the AO to the tune of Rs.8,75,000/- without appreciating: That the amounts withdrawn by assessee who is diabetic with high blood pressure and obesity due to medical conditions consequential withdrawal of cash in person were kept for emergencies pertaining to medical attention for herself and her family. That assessee had to deposit the cash due to demonetization that too partially i.e. notes of Rs.500 and Rs.1,000 as they were no longer considered as legal tender.

(2.1) 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 30/08/2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), it 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 Page 3 of 4 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 reasons for the decisions. Thus, it is the statutory duty of the Ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on merits of the case. It can be readily inferred that dismissing the assessee’s appeal in limine, for want of prosecution, without going into the merits of the case was erroneous on the part of the Ld. CIT(A) having regard to provisions contained under section 250(6) of the Act. Further, on perusal of records, it is found that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. When the facts of the case were discussed with the Ld. Departmental Representative, he 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, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 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; the impugned order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), dated 30/08/2024 is hereby set aside, and the disputes 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 directions.