RACHNA MALOO,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

Before us, the assessee has taken up primarily two grounds viz. reopening of the case u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act and confirming of the addition made u/s 10(38) of the Act. When asked about the ground regarding the reopening u/s 148 of the Act, the ld. AR argued that this ground has been subsumed in the ground no. 2 of the assessee filed before the ld. CIT (A). We find that the ld. CIT (A) has passed an ex-parte order and held that the order is being decided on merits based on the material available on the record. However, the issue of reopening has not been adjudicated by the ld. CIT (A). Even, if 2 Rachna Maloo it is considered as additional grounds taken by the assessee for the first time before us, since the revenue had not got the opportunity to go through the factum of the reopening, we hereby remand the matter back to the file of ld. CIT (A) to adjudicate afresh taking into consideration the submission of the assessee. We believe, the assessee would not misuse the trust reposed upon and comply with the notices issued by the ld. CIT (A) promptly without taking any unnecessary adjournments.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 05/09/2019).