DHANANJAY ANANT NENE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Pune (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 21.08.2017 for the assessment year 2008-09.

Briefly, the facts of the case are as under :- The appellant is an individual and is engaged in the business of software consultancy. The return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 02.09.2008 declaring total income of Rs.63,36,470/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 28.12.2010 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs.65,17,720/-. The disparity between the returned income and assessed income is on account of addition of Rs.1,27,229/- of disallowance of travelling, conveyance expenses and depreciation and addition of Rs.34,014/- made towards undeclared short term capital gains. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A) contesting the above additions. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution as no one was appeared despite due service of notice. However, the ld. CIT(A) simply confirmed the finding of the Assessing Officer without going into the merits of the additions, without examining any evidence or without adverting to the material on record. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us in the present appeal. 5. We heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the material on record. We find that the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) cannot be termed as an order on merit. It is requirement of law that the ld. CIT(A) should not dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution without going into the merits of the issues in appeal. Therefore, we remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the appellant.