Mrs. Saguna A. Sukthankar, Atmaram Niwas, Bangaganga Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai 400 006. Vs. I.T.O. 16(2), Mumbai.
July, 22nd 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE S/SHRI H.L. KARWA, HON'BLE PRESIDENT AND P.M. JAGTAP, AM
.. , .. ,
./I.T.A. No.6055 /Mum/2011
( / Assessment Year : 2006-2007
Mrs. Saguna A. / I.T.O. 16(2),
Sukthankar, Vs. Mumbai.
Mumbai 400 006.
. / PAN : ANQPS1590Q
( /Appellant) .. ( / Respondent)
Appellant by None
Respondent by : Shri Prakash L. Pathede
/ Date of Hearing : 14-07-2014
/Date of Pronouncement : 18-07-2014
/ O R D E R
PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld.
CIT(A) -27, Mumbai dated 25-4-2011 whereby he upheld the order passed by
the A.O. u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 making an addition of Rs.
37,50,000/- to the total income of the assessee on account of investment
made in Birla and SBI Mutual funds treating the same as unexplained
investment u/s 69 of the Act.
2. The assessee in the present case is an individual who filed her return of
income for the year under consideration on 31-6-2006 declaring total income
2 ITA 6055/M/11
of Rs. 2,29,990/- which mainly comprised of interest on fixed deposit. The
said return was initially processed by the A.O. u/s 143(1) of the Act. As per
the AIR information received by the A.O., the assessee had made an
investment of Rs. 37,50,000/- in Birla and SBI Mutual funds during the year
under consideration. He therefore issued notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the
Act requiring the assessee to explain the source of the said investment. The
assessee, however, did not comply with the notices issued by the A.O. and in
the absence of any satisfactory explanation offered by the assessee in respect
of the source of investment made in Birla and SBI Mutual funds, the A.O.
made an addition of Rs. 37,50,000/- to the total income of the assessee
treating the said investment as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act in
the assessment completed u/s 144 of the Act vide an order dtd. 24-12-2008.
3. Against the order passed by the A.O. u/s 144 of the Act, appeal was
preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and a written submission was
filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) along with additional evidence in
order to explain the source of investment made in Birla and SBI Mutual
funds. The said written submission was forwarded by the ld. CIT(A) to the
A.O. for his comments. As per the direction of the ld. CIT(A), the A.O.
furnished his remand report on 30th June, 2010 offering such comments.
After receipt of the said remand report from the A.O., the ld. CIT(A) sought to
give an opportunity to the assessee to offer her counter comments thereon.
As noted by the ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order, there was however no
response from the assessee's side to the notices issued by him fixing the
hearing from to time. The ld. CIT(A) therefore proceeded to dismiss the appeal
of the assessee and upheld the order of the A.O. passed u/s 144 of the Act
making an addition of Rs. 37,50,000/- on account of unexplained investment.
Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal
before the Tribunal.
3 ITA 6055/M/11
4. At the time of hearing before us, none has appeared on behalf of the
assessee. This appeal of the assessee therefore is being disposed of ex parte
qua the assessee after hearing the arguments of ld. D.R. and perusing the
relevant material available on record . It is observed that after discussing the
facts of the case and taking note of the written submission of the assessee as
well as the remand report submitted by the A.O., the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed
the appeal of the assessee finally vide para 7 of his impugned order which
reads as under:-
"I have carefully considered the appellant's written submissions and
also the contents of the remand report. Further I have taken note of the
appellant's non-co-operation before the A.O. during the assessment
proceedings and also during the remand proceedings. I have also taken
into consideration the appellant's attitude towards the appeal
proceedings that the appellant is no longer interested in pursuing the
appeal. Therefore, considering the facts brought on reco5rd by the A.O.
in his remand report and also for want of prosecution of appeal by the
appellant, I hereby dismiss the appeal."
As is clearly evident from the relevant portion of the impugned order of the ld.
CIT(A) reproduced above, he has dismissed the appeal of the assessee mainly
for want of prosecution on the part of the assessee and there is really no
decision rendered by him on the merit of the issue involved in the said appeal
relating to addition made on account of unexplained investment. As per the
provisions of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) is
required to dispose of the appeal of the assessee filed before him by an order
in writing stating therein the points for determination, the decision thereon
and the reasons for the said decision. The impugned order passed by the ld.
CIT(A), in our opinion, does not satisfy these requirements. We therefore set
aside the said order and remit the matter back to him for deciding the appeal
of the assessee afresh on merit in accordance with law after giving the
assessee proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard. The assessee is
also directed to comply with the requirements of the ld. CIT(A) and render all
4 ITA 6055/M/11
the possible cooperation in order to enable the ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical
Order pronounced in the open court on 18th July, 2014.
(H.L. KARWA) (P.M. JAGTAP)
/ PRESIDENT / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated 18-07-2014
. ../ RK , Sr. PS
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. / The Appellant
2. / The Respondent.
3. () / The CIT(A)--27, Mumbai
4. / CIT City 16, Mumbai
5. , , / DR, ITAT, Mumbai E Bench
6. / Guard file.
/ BY ORDER,
/ (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
, / ITAT, Mumbai