KIRAN B JAISWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 22(2)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

In this appeal, assessee has contended that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer without considering the explanation furnished by the assessee.

At the time of hearing, it was seen that none appeared on behalf of the appellant assessee inspite of issuance of notice of hearing, whereas Shri Santosh Mankoskar appeared on behalf of the Revenue. In the absence of any appearance on behalf of the assessee, following Rule-24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the appeal is being disposed of ex-parte, qua the assessee after hearing Ld. Departmental Representative on merits.

In this case, the orders of the authorities below reveal that no return of income for assessment year 2009-10 was filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer finalized the assessment under section 143(3)r.w.s. 147 of the Act, whereby a total income of Rs.98,62,446/- has been determined. The various additions made were on account of cash deposits in bank account, cheque transactions in bank account, etc., which have been considered as unexplained. The CIT(A) has also sustained the addition primarily on the ground that the assessee did not put in any appearance. In particular, the CIT(A) referred to the judgement of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT,223 ITR 480(MP) and has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-attendance of hearing before him.

At the time of hearing, the attention of the Ld. Departmental Representative was drawn to section 250(6) of the Act , which requires the Commissioner(Appeals) to dispose of the appeal before him in writing and by stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. It was pointed out to the Ld.