PUSPA DATTATRAY MEGHE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

During hearing the learned counsel for the assessee Shri Mahesh Rajora, claimed that the assessee is a senior citizen, old lady, could not engage a legal person as she was not aware about the complexity of income tax laws. Our attention was invited to para 2.4.2.1 of the impugned order wherein it has been mentioned that the assessee sought adjournments, which were not allowed and the assessee could not furnish the necessary evidence. It was contended that the assessee is having sufficient material to substantiate its claim. Therefore,

3 ITA 6322/Mum/2016 for A.Y 2011-12 Pushpa Dattatray Meghe in the interest of justice, the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer so that the factual matrix may be considered. However, the learned DR Shri Virender Singh, contended that inspite of sufficient opportunities, provided to the assessee by the learned CIT(A), the matter may not be sent back.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is noted that the assessee, a lady/senior citizen, claimed deduction under section 54 of the Act. The assessee could not furnish the necessary details and even before the learned CIT(A) the ITP, engaged by the assessee to represent her case, sought adjournments and could not file the necessary details and, thus, the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer was sustained. In para 2.4.2.1 of the impugned order it has been mentioned that the assessee sought adjournments and was not serious in prosecuting the appeal filed by the assessee. Considering the totality of facts and by taking a lenient view, we deem it appropriate to remand this appeal to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the assessee afresh