Rashmeen Mandal, Kolkata vs Assessee

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C " BENCH: KOLKATA

[Before Hon'ble Shri Mahavir Singh, JM & Hon'ble Shri B.P.Jain, AM ]

I.T.A No.1214/Kol/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09

Smt.Rashmeen Mandal Vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-28, Kolkata Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) (PAN:ALIPM 7045 C)

For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri P.K.Chakraborty, JCIT

Date of hearing : 09.04.2015. Date of pronouncement: 20.04.2015. ORDER

Per Shri B.P.Jain, AM :

This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of ld.CIT(A)-XIV, Kolkata dated 22.05.2012 for Assessment Year 2008-09.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

"1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of 50% of rent of the premises from where the appellant run her Insurance Agency business.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.51,05,600 which was deposited in the appellant's bank A/Cs.

3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming all the additions made by the A.O. without hearing the version of the appellant regarding sources of the said deposits.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in disposing the appeal ex-party despite the fact that the notices u/s 250 were not served on the appellant.

5. The appellant craves leave to adduce any other ground or grounds during the tenure of this Appeal."

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is stated to be working as an insurance agent of Max New York India Ltd from where she earned commission and after debiting the expenditure against such commission the net income of Rs.8,93,325/- was declared. The assessee debited the rent expenditure of Rs.2,64,000/-. AO disallowed 50% of the rental expenses. Since the premises were ITA No.1214/Kol/2012 2 Smt.Rashmeen Mandal A.Yr.2008-09

used for residence as well as office AO added back Rs.1,32,000/- to the income of the assessee.

3.1. The assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs.22,93,000/- and Rs.24,47,100/- totaling to Rs.47,40,100/- in two different branches of Axis bank, Kolkata mentioned at page 1 of the AO's order and details at page 2 of the AO's order. Assessee could not explain the source of such deposits and AO accordingly made addition of the said amount.

3.2. The assessee had paid Rs.1,65,500/- in cash against ICICI bank credit card as per detail at page 2 and 3 of the AO's order which could not be explained by the assessee. In the absence of any evidence produced the AO treated the same as unexplained expenditure u/s 69 of the Act.

3.3. Further the assessee invested Rs.2,00,000/- in Sundaram BNP Paribas Mutual Fund. The explanation given for the investment was not found satisfactory. Therefore the AO treated the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee.

4. Before the ld. CIT(A) none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO vide para 3 and 4 of his order.

5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee before us as well. After hearing the ld.DR we find that the ld. CIT(A) had issued notices by registered post which were returned back by the postal authorities. Therefore the ld. CIT(A) proceeded to decide the matter exparte. For the sake of convenience order of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced herein below :-

"3. In this case notice u/s 250 of the I.T.Act, 1961 was sent to the appellant fixing hearing on 11.8.2011, 21.5.2012. However, there was no compliance on the part of the appellant. These notices sent by Registered Post have been returned back by the postal authorities. Further, the appellant has not intimated any new address. In light of these facts the appeal is decided ex-parte.

ITA No.1214/Kol/2012 3 Smt.Rashmeen Mandal A.Yr.2008-09

4. The appellant has raised grounds that the additions made by the AO are not correct and contrary to law and facts. However, the appellant has not brought on record any material in support of his contention. Therefore, after careful perusal of the assessment order, I am of the view that the additions have been correctly made by the A.O. Hence I confirm the additions made by the A.O. Hence, all the grounds of appeal are dismissed.

5.1. From perusal of the order of ld.CIT(A) it is evident that the order is not a speaking order and the ld.CIT(A) has to pass an order on merit on the basis of materials available on record and to deal with each and every ground separately. Accordingly, in the interest of justice the matter is set aside to the file of ld.CIT(A) with the direction to pass a speaking order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee at the latest address available with the department. All the grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

6. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the court on 20.04.2015.

Sd/- Sd/- [ Mahavir Singh ] [B.P.Jain] Judicial Member Accountant Member

Date: 20.04.2015.

R.G.(.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. Smt.Rashmeen Mandal, Flat-2D, Ph-II, Gantes Residency, 37, Tollygunje Circular Road, Kolkata-53.

2 A.C.I.T., Circle-28, Kolkata

3. CIT(A)-XIV, Kolkata 4. CIT - Kolkata.

5. CIT-DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata

True Copy, By order,

Deputy /Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata Benches ITA No.1214/Kol/2012 4 Smt.Rashmeen Mandal A.Yr.2008-09