SAVITA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-38(4), NEW DELHI

Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, on perusal of the orders of both, learned Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), we note that they have been passed ex parte qua the assessee. With the assistance of learned Sr. DR, we are inclined to take up the matter ex parte qua the assessee, by considering the material on record.

Brief facts as noted from the impugned orders are that case of assessee was reopened under Section 148 since she had not filed income tax return for the year under consideration and had purchased property for a consideration of Rs.53,00,000. In order to make inquiry on this purchase transaction, learned Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 142(1) on several occasions which remained unattended. Only on one occasion, CA Govind Kumar attended and filed a letter dated 07.12.2017 along with agreement to sell and sought adjournment.

Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) disposed of the appeal and confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer

Considering the above stated facts and material on record, in the interest of justice and fair play, we find it proper to remit the matter back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for de novo assessment by giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to make her submission in support of her claim. Assessee is also directed to be diligent to attend the date of hearings fixed by the learned Assessing Officer and make the required submission, failing which learned Assessing Officer may proceed to complete the assessment in accordance with the provisions of the law. Accordingly, ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.