INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BANGALORE vs. MS.DIVYA CHETANA, BANGALORE

The revenue has raised the following grounds :

When this appeal is called for hearing none has appaeared onbehalf of the assessee-respondent. It transpires from record that the notice issued to the assessee through Regd. AD has been received back unserved. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is heard exparte.

The only issue raised by the revenue is regarding addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of fixed deposits in Canara Bank was deleted by the CIT (Appeals) by considering the fresh evidence without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer.

Submissions of learned Departmental Representative as well as relevant material on record has been considered. It is noted that during the assessment

Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made investment of fixed deposit with Canara Bank to the tune of Rs.32 lakhs. The Assessing Officer has further recorded in the assessment order that despite several opportunities given to the assessee, the assessee has not appeared nor complied with the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). Hence, the assessment was completed under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act.

On appeal, the assessee furnished the evidence in the shape of certificate from the Bank and contended that these fixed deposits are not fresh deposits but it was renewal of all the deposits and only the interest earned on these deposits have been withdrawn by the assessee. The CIT (Appeals) has accepted the additional evidence and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to respond to the additional evidence by the assessee before the CIT (Appeals). Thus it is clear that when the assessee neither appeared nor filed any response to the notice under Section 148 and the assessment was framed under Section 144 then the acceptance of the fresh evidence by the CIT (Appeals) without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer is an apparent violation of Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this issue is set

In the result, the appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.