RUMANA BANO SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. MUM-C-(401)(91), MUMBAI

Coming to both learned lower authorities action making section 56(2)(viii)(b) read with section 69 read with section 115BBE addition of Rs. 58,99,000/- representing undisclosed investment(s), it emerges at the outset with above assistance coming from the parties that the learned CIT(A) herein has quoted tax appellant’s non-appearance in paragraph 5 page 6 of the lower appellate discussion while confirming the Assessing Officer’s action to this effect.

Faced with situation, learned counsel representing assessee attributed his non-appearance to various communication gap on the one hand whereas the Revenue failed to rebut the clinching fact that the impugned lower appellate finings have neither framed points of determination nor is there any detailed discussion thereupon as per section 250(6) of the Act. Faced with this situation and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance back to the learned CIT(A)/NFAC for its fresh appropriate adjudication on merits as per law subject to the rider it shall be assessee’s risk and responsibility to plead and prove all relevant facts; by way of supportive evidence or additional evidence; as the case may be, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.