Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Sri S.S. Godara
Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rajani Agarwal…......……………..............….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…..…….......Appellant 9A, Shreedhar Roy Road Tiljala Kolkata-700 039 [PAN : AQRPA 0252 F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd.-25(3), Kolkata…………………………….……......…….....….…............Respondent Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Radhe Shyam, CIT D/R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : December 31st, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : 31/12/ 2018 ORDER Per S.S. Godara, JM :- This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata’s order dated 17/10/2017 passed in case No. 186/CIT(A)-7/Kol/Wd-25(3)/16-17, confirming the Assessing Officer’s action addition u/s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act and unexplained cash credits.
Case called twice. None appeared at assessee’s behest. The assessee has already been sent a notice by RPAD on 08/10/2018. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. Her instant appeal is not taken up for adjudication on merits.
The assessee’s twin substantive grounds raised in the instant appeal challenges the correctness of both the lower authorities action adding amounts of Rs.12,55,000/- u/s56(2)(vii) and unexplained cash credits; respectively.
A perusal of the instant case file reveals that the CIT(A) has passed this order ex- parte whilst confirming the Assessing Officer’s action on merits in para 7 of his lower appellate order. I find that there is no averment in the CIT(A)’s order about actual service of notice. Learned lower authority’s case is that the assessee did not put in Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rajani Agarwal appearance despite the fact that it had resorted to affixation of the hearing notice. He has thereafter confirmed both the impugned additions on merits. Learned CIT D/R fails to dispute that the CIT(A)’s adjudication on merits has not discussed even the basic facts of the two issue followed by a detailed adjudication u/s 250(6) of the Act.
I therefore restore the instant lis back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law on merits.