Shakeel Abdul Azeez Mohammad Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
ITAT Pune held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) on account of non-prosecution without deciding the appeal of merit is not justifiable. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) is set-aside to CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
Facts- Assessee has preferred the present appeal mainly contesting that the proceedings were initiated on the basis of information/documents related to assessee found during the course of search at third party, thus, the notice issued by the AO under section 148 instead of Section 153C is bad in law. Further, it is also contested that CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.72,18,349/- made by AO u/s 69A of the act by treating the entire cash deposits in Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd as unexplained money of the appellant without appreciating the facts of the case and submissions on record.
Conclusion- Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) has categorically held that CIT(A) has to decide the appeal on merit. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) is set-aside to CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the Assessee. Assessee shall file all necessary details before CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
