SHRI SUBRATA BASU,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-42(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The Assessee is an individual. For AY 80-09, the Assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.7,86,680/-. An order of assessment u/s.143(3) of the income Tax Act, 1961 was passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) dated 14.12.2011 determining the total income of the Assessee at Rs.50,56,381/-. An addition of Rs.42,69,701 was made to the total income of the Assessee in the order of assessment passed by the AO for the reason that three companies had shown in their details of Tax Deducted at source, the Assessee as a recipient of sums totalling Rs.42,69,701/- but the Assessee has not reflected the said receipt in his return of income. -Sri Subrata Basu A.Y.2009-10 1

Aggrieved by the additions made in the order of assessment, the Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). Before CIT(A), in the statement of facts filed before CIT(A), the Assessee pointed out that an addition of Rs.42,69,701 was made to the total income of the Assessee in the order of assessment passed by the AO for the reason that three companies had shown in their details of Tax Deducted at source, the Assessee as a recipient of sums totalling Rs.42,69,701/- but the Assessee has not reflected the said receipt in his return of income. The Assessee claimed before the CIT(A) that the receipt in question was offered to tax as income in another assessment year and that the Assessee has also claimed credit for tax deducted at source in that year. However none appeared before CIT(A) on the date when the appeal was fixed for hearing. The CIT(A) therefore dismissed the appeal of the Assessee observing as follows: “4. The case was fixed for hearing on 14.12.2012, 09.01.2013, 20.05.2013, & 03.09.2013 but no one attended except on 09.01.2013 when Smt. Kusum Jalan, ACA submitted a letter for adjournment. Subsequently, the case was refixed for hearings on the above mentioned dates but none attended nor any adjournment petition filed. Since there are no written or oral submissions on the part of the appellant to explain his case inspite of so many opportunities provided till date, it is presumed that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his case and has nothing to say in the matter. In view of this, the appeal of the appellant is no longer entertained and stands dismissed. Resultantly the assessment made by the AO is confirmed.”

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard rival submission and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the order of CIT(A) is ex parte and a non speaking order. We are of the view that where appeal has been disposed of even though on merits without a speaking order, the order of CIT(A) cannot be sustained. The provisions of section 250(6) of the Act are in the nature of judicial discretion to the Appellate Authority and emphasize that the order disposing of the appeal shall be a speaking order. The order shall not cryptic but shall be self-explanatory. Hence, we set aside the order of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Subrata Basu A.Y.2009-10 2

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.