HEMLATA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO,WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU

That assessee has submitted all the supporting evidence for purchase of investment while case details were asked by income tax officer investigation land and even had produce himself along with witness u/s 133 6 of IT Act but the same is not taken in positive by assessing authority and had not passed order under the income tax Act.”

Brief facts of the case are that the notice u/s 148 of the act was issued on 26.03.2019 and duly served after recording reasons u/s 147 of the I.T. Act by the AO. The reassessment was completed on 03.12.2019 at an assessed income of Rs. 11,43,890/-. On perusal of assessment order it is observed that the addition was made on account of investment in cash for purchasing immovable property u/s 69B of the Act amounting to Rs. 11,43,890/-. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 11,43,890/- was added back to the income of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) observed that notices were issued on 10.01.2021, 31.03.2022, and 04.11.2022 requiring the assessee to file

Aggrieved by the ld. CIT(A) order, the assessee is before us.

The ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities praying that the assessee was provided various opportunities by the lower authorities to argue the case but the assessee was lethargic and unserious to pursue his case and thus the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) should be sustained.

We have heard ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that the AO and the ld. CIT(A) have passed the ex-parte order and the assessee is deprived off to contest the case before the lower authorities. The ld. AR for the assessee fail to produce documentary evidence/submission in response to the appeal filed by the assessee hence, the order passed in both proceedings are ex-parte. Taking into consideration the present facts and circumstances of the case, we feel to remand back to the AO admitting the evidences filed before us. In the Interest of natural justice, we direct the Assessing Officer to take a consistent view of the matter after considering the submission of the assessee for the year. It is undisputed fact that the assessee was granted several authorities either by the ld. CIT(A) or by the AO to argue the case but the assessee remained non-cooperative and negligent in pursuing his case on the dates of hearing of the appeal for which Hemlata Sharma vs. ITO the Bench awards cost of Rs. 2,000/- and the same may be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and copy of the same shall be submitted to the AO for proof and thus the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of assessment proceedings before the AO. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the A.O. shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by A.O. independently in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/08/2023.