SRIMAN STOCKS MANAGEMENTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 2(1), THANE

Date of Hearing 09.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement 17.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC for A.Y. 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in passing an ex parte order and confirming the addition made by the Id. Assessing Officer and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax and rules made thereunder

2. Without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal, On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal in limine without consideration of the subject issues on merit. Therefore, the appeal may be restored to the Hon’ble CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

P a g e | Sriman Stocks Management Pvt. Ld. Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1) 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in upholding validity of issuing notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.

4. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for not making any compliance to the number of notices of hearing issued during the course of appellate proceedings.

5. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The assessing officer has completed assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act by making addition of Rs.4,30,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on account of not proving genuineness of the loan transaction as discussed supra in this order. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that assessee failed to make compliance to the notices of hearing issued at the time of appellate proceedings before the First Appellate Authority without adjudicating on merit. Before us the ld. Counsel submitted that the counsel of the assessee could not compliance during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) since the ld. counsel was not available and he was at his native place because of some urgent personal affairs. After taking into consideration the material available on record we find that neither the ld. CIT(A) has decied the appeal of the assessee on merit after taking into consideration the material placed in the assessment record nor the assessee has made compliance during the course of appellate proceedings. We consider that Section 250(6) of the Act contemplate that ld. CIT(A) would determine point in dispute and therefor record reason on such point in support of his conclusion. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the case on merit after considering the material placed on record as contemplated in the provision of Sec.