DHRUV SACHDEV L/H OF LATE ARUN SACHDEV,BHOPAL vs. ITO-5(2), BHOPAL

Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 13.09.2023 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), N.F.A.C., Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 26.02.2016, passed by the ITO, 5(2), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment-Year 2008-09, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called nor any adjournment application filed. The case was passed over and taken up at the end of board but still nobody appeared on behalf of assessee.

We need to narrate only limited facts that are necessary for understanding and adjudication of case. ‘Shri Dhruv Sachdev’, appellant in present case, is the legal heir of ‘Late Shri Arun Sachdev’. In this case, the AO passed assessment-order after making an addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment in mutual funds. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal to CIT(A) and now came up in next appeal before us. From the Grounds of Appeal re-produced above and also Written-Submission filed by assessee, it appears that the CIT(A) has passed two orders while deciding first-appeal of the assessee. The first-order was passed on 12.01.2023 and the second-order is again passed on 13.09.2023. While the first-order was in favour of assessee, the second-order is against assessee. The assessee is impugning the second-order in present appeal. The assessee has filed copies of (i) first Order dated 12.01.2023 to show that the CIT(A) has already allowed assessee’s appeal and deleted addition made by AO and also (ii) a consequential Order dated 13.01.2023 passed by AO giving effect to the said order of CIT(A) and reducing demand to Rs. Nil. For the sake of immediate reference, these orders are being scanned and reproduced here:

Ld. DR for Revenue agrees to the prayer of assessee but, however, requests that the matter may be remanded back to CIT(A) to verify the facts cited by assessee and take a considered view.

We find merit in the prayer of Ld. DR. Accordingly, we remit this case back to the file of CIT(A) for carrying out necessary verification and then take a decision. Needless to mention that if it is found by CIT(A) that there are two orders passed at his level, the second order dated 13.09.2023 which is impugned in this appeal shall become non-est.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.