LAXMI PANDEY,HISAR vs. ITO WARD- 02, HISAR

The assessee in its various grounds has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the various additions made by the AO determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 6,05,900/- as against the returned income of Rs. 90,250/-.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. On the basis of information in his possession that the assessee has made huge cash deposits and also has received huge credit transfers in her bank accounts for making investment in purchasing of shares, mutual funds etc. the AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and issued notice u/s 148. In response to the notice issued u/s 148, the assessee filed her return of income declaring total income of Rs. 90,250/-. The AO completed the assessment u/s 147/143(3) of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 6,05,900/- wherein he made addition of Rs. 3,89,597/- on account of alleged unexplained credit entries in the bank account of the assessee in absence of any satisfactory explanation. Similarly, he made addition of Rs. 1,26,055/- being 50% of the cash deposit in the bank account 2 as unexplained. Since the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) despite repeated opportunities granted by her, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and another (1997) reported in 118 ITR 461 (SC), the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Ltd. reported in 38 ITD (Delhi) 320 and the decision of Hon’ble MP High Court in the case of Late Tukoji Rao Holkar vs. CWT (1997) reported in 223 ITR 480 dismissed the appeal.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that adequate opportunity was not granted by the Ld. CIT(A). Further she has not passed the order on merit and has simply dismissed the appeal on account of non prosecution. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the interest of justice the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate her case.

Ld. DR on the other hand drew the attention of the bench to the non cooperative attitude of the assessee and submitted that heavy cost should be imposed on the assessee for wasting the time of the court. He submitted that the assessee should not be given any further opportunity and the addition made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld.

I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. I find due to non appearance of the assessee despite number of opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) was constrained to pass the ex parte order. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not pass the order on merit which she is required to do as per the provision of section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee shall substantiate the source of various deposits in the bank account and explain the nature of credit entries. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final 4 opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case and decide the issue as per fact and law The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking any adjournment under any pretext and explain her case failing which Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assesee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.