SHARADA RADHAKRISHNAN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

order

: September 13th, 2024 ORDER

Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member:

I.T.A. No.: 1026/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sharada Radhakrishnan. 1.1. Aggrieved with this action, the appellant approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'CIT(A)'], before whom also no compliance was made to the notices sent for hearing. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) also upheld the action of ld. AO. 1.2. In light of these facts, this appellant has approached the ITAT with the following grounds of appeal:

1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee was not granted sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing in course of assessment as personal hearing to present oral submissions was not granted to the assessee and the procedural and jurisdictional formalities and necessities u/s. 147/148 were not observed, rendering the impugned assessment order u/s. 143(3)/147 dated 26.12.2017 invalid, ab- initio void and beyond jurisdiction and should be cancelled/set- aside/quashed.

2. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 698,975 as alleged unexplained investment u/s. 69A is wrong, erroneous, arbitrary, perverse, misconceived, excessive and deserves to be deleted/reduced.

3. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, refusal to grant credit for tax deducted at source attributable to income assessed to tax in assessee’s hands, and for self-assessment tax paid are wrong, erroneous, misconceived, arbitrary, excessive and should have been allowed.

4. For that the assessee craves leave to amend, alter, rescind, substitute and/or submit additional ground/grounds at the time of hearing of appeal.”

2. During the course of hearing before us, ld. A/R vehemently argued that neither did the ld. AO afford any worthwhile opportunity to the assessee for presenting her case, nor is the assessment order a speaking one. He also stated that the e-mails sent by the ld. CIT(A) were not received by the assessee and thus she was denied opportunity to present the case. The ld. A/R emphasised on ground no. 1, which ventilates the grievance regarding denial of opportunity. 2.1. The ld. D/R relied on the orders of the authorities below.

3. We have carefully considered the documents placed before us and the arguments of ld. DR/AR. It is clear from a reading of the orders of authorities

Page 2 of 3 I.T.A. No.: 1026/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sharada Radhakrishnan. below that the addition has been made and sustained because the assessee could not present her case. Accordingly, we deem it fit to remand this case back to the ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.