POONAM,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), GHAZIABAD

When the appeals were called out, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Even, there is no application by the assessee seeking adjournment. However, on perusal of record, it is observed that the notice of hearing issued to the assessee was duly served as evidenced by the postal acknowledgement kept on record.

In view of the aforesaid, we proceed to dispose of the appeals ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and based on material available on record.

At the outset, we will deal with . The dispute in this appeal is in relation to validity of assessment framed under Section 144/147 of the Act and addition made of an amount of Rs.75,84,000 towards unexplained investment in purchase of property.

Briefly, the facts are, assessee is a resident individual. Based on information received from the Sub-Registrar, Ghaziabad, it was found that in the year under consideration, the assessee had purchased immoveable property for a consideration of Rs.75,84,000. Whereas, the assessee had not filed any return of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 133(6) of the Act to the assessee calling for information relating to the investment made.

We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record.

Facts on record reveal, assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings, for which, the assessment was completed ex parte on best judgment basis.

Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee had taken a ground that, firstly, no notice issued under Section 148 and 142(1) was received by the assessee. She has further contended that the actual investment made towards purchase of the property was to the tune of Rs.34,00,000, since, the assessee is a co-owner of the property. It is the case of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has wrongly applied the circle rate of Rs.75,84,000. It is observed, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal with the following observations:

From the above extracted observation of the first appellate authority, it is very much clear that he has not disposed of the appeal through a speaking order. His decision is bereft of any reasoning. In sum and substance, the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. This, in our view, is not the mandate of section 250 read with section 251 of the Act.

Considering the fact that the proceedings before the departmental authorities were completed ex parte and the assessee did not get any opportunity to establish her case regarding non-receipt of statutory notices and the actual quantum of investment made by her in purchase of house property, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of first appellate authority and restore the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Assessing Officer and co-operate in finalizing the assessment proceedings. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes .

In so far as is concerned, this appeal is against the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to the Assessing Officer to consider initiation of penalty proceedings, if warranted, depending upon the final outcome in the assessment proceedings.

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.