LATE SUDHA MISHRA ( THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. NISHANT MISHRA),BHOPAL vs. ITO, 5(2), BHOPAL

आदेश / O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

3. On hearing learned Representatives of both sides, it emerges that the CIT(A) has dismissed first-appeal ex-parte qua assessee for the reason that the assessee did not make any submission before him despite opportunities given. It is further observed that the CIT(A) has simply confirmed the order passed by AO and thereby upheld the additions but the grounds/issues raised by assessee in first-appeal requires an apt adjudication by CIT(A) on merit and in accordance with section 250(6). At the same time, it is also urged by Ld. AR for assessee that the AO has made addition of Rs. 17,40,000/- on account of unexplained deposits in bank a/c u/s 69A but the assessee is a lady who carried the business of boutique jobs for about 25 years and the assessee also had agricultural income. Therefore, the assessee accumulated savings in cash and had to deposit in bank a/c due to declaration of demonetization. The assessee made these submissions to AO in initial submissions but ultimately could not respond to the show-cause notice issued by AO for making further submissions which has led the AO to make addition. Ld. AR submitted that assessee is ready and willing to make representation before AO if an opportunity is given and hence prays that the present matter should be remanded to AO for a proper adjudication. Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct

Page 2 of 3 the assessee to represent his case before AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.