MRS. PUSHPA D. PATIL,,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

These six appeals by the assessee relating to the assessment years 1999-2000 to 2004-05 arise out of the separate orders passed by the ld. CIT(A), all dated 07-03-2016.

These cases have a checkered history inasmuch as the ld. CIT(A) in the first round of proceedings dismissed the appeals in limine without condoning the delay. The matter came up before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 30-01-2009, the Tribunal condoned the delay in presenting the appeals before the ld. CIT(A); set-aside his orders; and directed him to dispose of the appeals on merits. The ld. CIT(A) disposed of the instant appeals vide his orders dated 07-03-2016 now impugned before the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed ex parte order dated 27-02- 2018 in such appeals in the absence of any participation from the side of the assessee. Miscellaneous Petitions were filed requesting the Tribunal to recall the ex parte order for enabling the assessee to put forth her point of view. The Tribunal, vide its later order dated 08-04-2019, recalled its earlier order and fixed the matter for hearing. Such appeals have come up for hearing on several occasions before the Tribunal and on most of the times, the assessee has taken adjournment. Today, again the assessee has chosen not to be present. As such, I am proceeding to dispose of these old appeals ex parte qua the assessee.

For the assessment year 1999-2000, the proceedings were taken up u/s.147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’) determining the total income at Rs.5,62,020/- making additions, inter alia, of Rs.12,500/- u/s.68 of the Act; of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s.69B; of Rs.20,734/- u/s.69; of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s.68; of Rs.18,400/- in respect of income from other sources; of Rs.46,528/- on account of credit in bank; and Rs.30,000/- on account of low drawings. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal by confirming most of the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

I have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the assessee gave explanation before the ld. CIT(A) about the additions made by the AO, which has been captured on pages 3 and 4 of the impugned order. The explanation so given by the assessee has not been properly considered while confirming most of the additions by the ld. CIT(A). In my considered opinion, the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO so as to enable the assessee to put forth all the relevant evidence in support of her case before the AO.

Similar is the position regarding the remaining five appeals. The assessee gave explanation about the additions made by the AO, which has been recorded in the impugned orders but not properly considered while adjudicating on the additions. Following the view taken hereinabove, I set-aside the impugned orders for the remaining years as well and remit the matter to the file of the AO for deciding the issues afresh as

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 08th March, 2022.