SMT. ANINDITA PAUL,TAMLUK vs. I.T.O.,WARD-27(4), HALDIA

The assessee in the present case is an individual who is engaged in the business of trading of betel leaves. In response to the notice issued by the AO u/s 148 on 18.03.2016, the return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 23.06.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,93,730/-. As noticed by the AO, the assessee had deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,31,88,420/- in her bank account with State Bank of India, Tamluk Rly. Station Branch whereas the total receipts disclosed by her in the return of income were only Rs. 1,22,81,746/-. He, therefore, required the assessee to explain the difference of Rs. 9,06,654/- and since the assessee failed to offer any explanation in the matter, addition of Rs. 9,06,654/- was made by the Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Anindita Paul AO to the total income of the assessee in the assessment completed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act vide order dated 06.12.2016.

Against the order passed by the AO u/s 147/143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution vide his appellate order dated 25.01.2019 passed ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. In order to explain the non- appearance of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), the learned counsel for the assessee has filed an affidavit of the assessee stating on oath that the authorised representative appointed by her to appear before the AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A) did not cooperate and failed to comply with the requirements of the authorities below without giving any information to her. He has contended that one more opportunity may therefore be given to the assessee to put forth her case on merit. The learned DR has not raised any objection in this regard. He however contended that the explanation if any which the assessee seeks to offer in respect of difference between the bank deposits and total receipts declared in the return requires verification by the AO. He has urged that the matter may therefore, be sent back to the AO for such verification. I find merit in this contention of the learned DR and since the learned counsel for the assessee has not raised any Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Anindita Paul objection for sending the matter back to the AO, I the set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte and restore the matter to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh on merit after giving one more opportunity to the assessee to explain difference in bank deposits and the total receipts disclosed in the return of income. As undertaken by the learned counsel for the assessee, the assessee shall make due compliance before the AO and shall extend all the cooperation in order to enable the AO to complete the assessment afresh expeditiously.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 15th October, 2019.