MR. RAMESH PRABHAKAR PATIL,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, PANDHARPUR

This assessee‟s appeal for AY 2010-11 arises against the CIT(A)-7, Pune‟s order dated 20-11-2019 passed in case No. PN/CIT(A)7/10336/2017-18 involving proceedings under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short „the Act‟. Case called twice. None appears at assessee‟s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex parte.

Mr. M.G. Jasnani, learned Departmental Representative appearing at the Revenue‟s behest, vehemently argues that both the learned lower authorities have rightly made the impugned addition thereby treating the assessee‟s cash deposits herein of Rs.27,54,985/- as unexplained in question. He sought to buttress the point that not only the assessee had been proceeded ex parte u/s 144 of the Act before the Assessing Officer but also he chose not to appear before CIT(A) as well.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue‟s foregoing vehement contentions and find no merit therein in principle. A perusal of CIT(A)‟s tabulation in para 3, page 2 indicates that there is no material as to whether the assessee had been served the corresponding hearing notice(s) on the last four occasions i.e. 16.01.2019, 28.02.2019, 25.06.2019 and 31.10.2019. This is coupled with the fact that the CIT(A) has not even examined the entire issue in light of section 250(6) requiring him to frame the point(s) of determination followed by a detailed adjudication. All what the CIT(A) has done is to affirm the assessment findings in para 4.1 without even examining the corresponding deposits details alongwith the opening balance as well as peak credit; as the case may be. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee‟s instant sole grievance back to the CIT(A) for his detailed adjudication on merits within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.