SMT. KIRTHIKA RAMKUMAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 29(2)(1), MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-40, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)], in dated 10.12.2019. The assessment was framed vide order dated 20.12.2017 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in making an ex- parte assessment and passing an order under section 250 of the Act without giving a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellant and thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

2. The Appellant prays that the order passed in the mater be held bad in law and thus.”

3. For the same, the learned Counsel for the assessee took us through the order of CIT(A) and he read out Para 4, wherein certain facts were discussed and only adjudication by CIT(A) is that the Assessing Officer has considered the explanation filed by the assessee. The relevant finding of CIT(A) read as under: - “…..

Kirthika Ramkumar Page | 3 The A.O. after considering the explanation filed by the appellant and also relying on various case laws mentioned in the assessment order vide para No.4.9 came to the conclusion that the assessee alongwith her husband had paid cash of ₹25,21,000/- being 50% of the total on money paid as part of her share in the form of on money for purchase of the above said flat. Accordingly made the addition u/s 69 of the I.T. Act treating the same as unexplained investment.

Even though the appellant objected to the addition made in his ground of appeal the appellant could not contracted the evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer who made the additions in the assessment order and hence the addition made by the Assessing Officer is hereby confirmed dismissing all the grounds of appeal.”

4. We noted from the above that the CIT(A) has just relied on the Assessing Officer’s order there is no independent finding as clear from the above reproduced part of the order of CIT(A). One more fact mentioned by the learned Counsel for the assessee is that the addition in respect of unexplained investment made by assessee has already been deleted in the Kirthika Ramkumar Page | 4 hands of the originating party i.e. Runwal Homes Pvt. ltd. from whom the assessee has purchased this Flat No.1406 in tower 8 in building named Pinewood. It was stated by the learned Counsel that in the case of Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd., the undisclosed income was deleted by the Tribunal but at this stage, without going into the merits of the case, since CIT(A) has not adjudicate the issue by way of speaking order, we are of the view that this issue needs re-adjudication at the level of the CIT(A). At this point, the learned Sr. Departmental Representative fairly agreed that the matter can be restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication without any embargo. Hence, we restore this matter back to the file of the CIT(A) who will decide the issue afresh by way of speaking order after considering all the relevant material and fact.