MRS. KUMKUM MATHUR,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

These appeals by the Assessee are directed against the common order dated 27.01.2015 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi pertaining to assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12. Since the issue involved in these appeal are common and identical, we are passing this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with (A.Y 2005-06).

2. The grounds of appeal read as under:-

“1. The learned CIT [A] has erred in holding the notices issued u/s 153A as valid-ignoring the fact that no search took place on her. 2. The learned CIT [A] has erred in holding in the indiscriminate additions as unexplained incomes and investments without exercise of sufficient -2912/DEL/ 2015 Smt. Kumkum Mathur vs. DCIT and reasonable fair play and principles of natural justice as correct and holding all explanations as additional evidences.

3. The learned CIT [A] has erred in confirming the addition of the cash deposits of Rs. 30,000 in bank ignoring the explanation that they were on account of advances for or reimbursement of travel expenses etc of her spouse -which were met by credit card payments.

4. The learned CIT [A] has erred in confirming the addition of all investments in shares of Rs 72,129 during the year.

5. The Tax demanded including interest charged u/s 234 B is wrong.

6. That the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. ”

3. The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

4. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assesssee is mainly pressing ground no. 2 at this juncture in which he has stated that the Ld. CIT (A) has not accepted the explanations and additional evidences furnished during the course of appellate proceedings and has dismissed the assessee’s submissions summarily without giving any cogent reasons. He further stated that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed the impugned order without hearing the assessee and without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. He also drew our attention to the decision rendered by Delhi SMC-2 Bench in to 4722/Del/2015 in the case of Shri Kamlesh Behari Mathur, the husband of the assessee and submitted that in the said judgment the issue has been restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration on this ground only and pleaded that in the interest of justice, the issues in dispute may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision, under the law, after giving full opportunity to the assessee of being heard. -2912/DEL/ 2015 Smt. Kumkum Mathur vs. DCIT

5. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A).

6. We heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the order passed by the SMC-2 Bench of ITAT, New Delhi in to 4722/Del/2015 wherein in the case of the husband of the assessee, the matter has been restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Following the same and in the interest of justice, we remit the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for fresh adjudication, after giving proper opportunity to the assessee and also direct him to consider the evidences/documents, if any, to be produced by the assessee in substantiating his/her claim and decide the appeals, as per law by passing a speaking order. We also hasten to add that the assessee shall extend all co-operation to the Ld. CIT(A) for an early disposal of the matter and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27th November,2015. sd/- sd/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: the 27. 11. 2015 ‘veena’ Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) -2912/DEL/ 2015 Smt. Kumkum Mathur vs. DCIT

5. DR 6. Guard File By order Dy. Registrar

Sl. Description Date No.

7. Date of file sent to the Bench Clerk