VIJAY PAL SOLANKI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 44(5), NEW DELHI

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15 [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s order dated 14.08.2019 passed in case no. 35/16-17, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He had also not put in appearance on the earlier hearings as well. We thus proceed ex-parte against the assessee.

It is next noticed with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned Assessing Officer had framed his regular assessment herein on 31st March, 2016, inter alia, making section 37 disallowance followed by section 69 and 68 additions; involving varying sums, respectively, which stand upheld in the ex- parte lower appellate discussion.

The Revenue vehemently contends that both the learned lower authorities have rightly disallowed/added the impugned sums in assessee’s case on account of his failure to explain the source of his cash credits/deposits as well as investments etc., which need to be upheld herein as well. Our attention is further invited to the lower appellate ex-parte proceedings against the assessee in pages 4 to 5. 5. We note in this factual backdrop that there is no adjudication on merits, so far as the assessee’s various substantive grounds raised in his lower appeal are concerned, which indeed goes against the legislative mandate under section 250(6) of the Act, requiring