POONAM AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-23, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

It is noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 22 days. For which the assessee has filed condonation petition. After perusing the same and hearing both the parties, such delay in filing the same is condoned and the appeal is heard and dispose off the same on merits on the basis of material available on record.

At the time of hearing before us the ld.AR of the assessee contended that the AO determined the income of assessee at Rs.46,82,600/- as against Rs. 11,08,990/- as declared by the assessee in her return of income. During the scrutiny proceedings, according to AO, the assessee could not explain by placing any evidence in support of her return filed. But, however, the AO determined the income of the assessee under the head ‘salary’, house property and income from other sources basing on the details as filed by her before the AO along with return. The CIT-A confirmed the addition made by the AO in the absence of her or any representative on behalf of the assessee and referred to para 4 of the order of the CIT-A urged to send the matter/issue involved in this appeal to the file of the AO for his fresh consideration.

In reply, the ld.DR appearing on behalf of the revenue has not objected to the above proposition of the assessee.

Heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that before the AO the assessee in support of her contention could not explain to the show cause as issued by the AO in respect of property situated in Loudon Street and AJC Bose Road. The AO also found that the assessee debited an amount of Rs.11,42,622/-. The AO disallowed such expenditure for non submission of explanation. The AO also sought for information regarding gift received by her from friends and relatives to an extent of Rs.32,809/- and for non submission of explanation the AO added the same to the income of assessee. Therefore, we find that there was no proper representation to explain the return of income of assessee before the AO. It is also noticed that the assessee also could not prosecute her case before the CIT-A as it is evident from para-4 of order of CIT-A. In such circumstances, taking into consideration the submissions before us and in the interest of natural justice, we deem it fit and proper to remand the case to the file of the AO for his consideration and to pass an order in accordance with law after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of hearing. The assessee shall be at liberty to file requisite evidences, if any, to substantiate her claim.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 08/02/2017