SMT. VASUNDHARA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vasundhara ITO The Educations 2389, Vs Ward- 20 (4) GF/ Basement, Hudson Lane, New Delhi Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009 PAN No.AEFPV0913E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Shashi Chandra, AR Respondent by Dr. Vijay Kumar Chadha, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 11/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 13/09/2019 ORDER

PER R.K. PANDA, AM:

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of consultancy under the name and style of M/s The Educations. She filed her return of income on 25.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs.7,05,340/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 143 (3) on 24.12.2011 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,48,910/- wherein he made addition of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of transactions through undisclosed bank account or receipt from bogus gifts, Rs.3,337/- on account of disallowance of motor car expenses and Rs.15,182/- disallowed out of Telephone expenses. The Assessing Officer thereafter initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1) (c ) of the IT Act. Rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.3,32,420/- u/s 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act, 1961 being 100% of tax sought to be evaded.

4. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by applying the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Private Limited reported in 38 ITD 320 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee reported in 118 ITR 461.

5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

6. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. We find the Ld. CITA) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on account of non appearance before him by applying the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Private Limited reported in 38 ITD 320 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Page | 2 Bhattacharjee reported in 118 ITR 461. However, he has not decided the appeal on merit which he is required to do. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also explained the reasons for non appearance before the CIT(A) and pleaded that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate her case before the CIT(A). Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case and decide the issue as per law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised

by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purpose.

7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.09.2019.