The Tax PublishersITA No. 3943/Del/2019
2021 TaxPub(DT) 0851 (Del-Trib)INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 250(6)
Since there was no compliance from the side of the assessee, CIT(A), following the decision of CIT v. BN Bhattacharya ((1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC) : 1979 TaxPub(DT) 1026 (SC)), dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and he, however, while deciding the appeal on merit had simply sustained the addition made by AO in a cryptic order, therefore, matter was remanded back to CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to assessee to substantiate his case and decide the appeal on the basis of facts and law by passing a speaking order.
|
Appeal [CIT(A)] - Ex-parte order - Dismissal of assessee's appeal for non prosecution - Non speaking order of Commissioner
On the basis of AIR information that assessee had made cash deposit in his saving bank account, case of assessee was reopened by issuing of notice under section 148. There was no compliance from the side of assessee. Subsequently, assessee appeared before AO along with the bank statement and the computation of income. However, despite number of opportunities granted to substantiate the source of such deposit, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee to explain the source of the cash deposit. AO, therefore, completed the assessment under section 147/144 determining the total income of assessee wherein he made addition under section 69A to the returned income. Since there was no compliance from the side of the assessee, despite three opportunities granted by CIT(A), he passed ex parte order sustaining the addition made by AO. Held: A perusal of the order of CIT(A) showed that two notices were sent through e-mail and the last notice was sent through speed post fixing the date of hearing. Since there was no compliance from the side of the assessee, CIT(A), following the decision of CIT v. BN Bhattacharya ((1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC) : 1979 TaxPub(DT) 1026 (SC)) and CIT v. Mulltiplan India (P) Ltd. ((1991) 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) : 1991 TaxPub(DT) 1420 (Del-Trib)) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. He, however, while deciding the appeal on merit had simply sustained the addition made by AO in a cryptic order. Therefore, matter was remanded back to CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to assessee to substantiate his case and decide the appeal on basis of facts and law by passing a speaking order.
Followed:CIT, (Central) Calcutta v. B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr. (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC) : 1979 TaxPub(DT) 1026 (SC) and CIT. v. Multiplan India (Private) Limited. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) : 1991 TaxPub(DT) 1420 (Del-Trib).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Matter remanded
A.Y. : 2010-11
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|