IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO. 1670/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 RITA SUMAN, D-1/153D, ARAVALI APARTMENTS, SECTOR-52 NOIDA BBFPS2394G VS. ITO WARD-24(3) C.R. BUILDING NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI B. KISHORE, SR, DR. ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, JM: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 8 TH FEBRUARY 2011 PASSED FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07. THE FIRST GRIEVANCE OF ASSESSEE IS THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMIS SED THE APPEAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY DECISION ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HA S FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 22 ND JUNE, 2006 DECLARING AN INCOME OF ` 1,30,430/-. THE ITA NO. 1670/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 2 CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSE SSMENT AND A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 28 TH JUNE, 2007. ACCORDING TO THE AO, HE HAD ISSUED NOTICES U/S 143(2) AS WELL AS QUE STIONNAIRE U/S 142(I) OF THE ACT. BUT THE NOTICES WERE REMAINED UNCOMPLI ED. HE FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED A SUM OF ` 14,53,500/- ON VARIOUS DATES WITH CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. THE CASH DEPOSITED B Y HER REMAINED UNEXPLAINED INSPITE OF NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES GIVE N BY THE AO. HE PASSED AN ASSTT. ORDER U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T AND MADE THE ADDITION OF ` 14,53,500/- WITH THE AID OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT. 3. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARR IED THE DISPUTE IN APPEAL. SHE CONTENDED THAT NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN TIME AND, THEREFORE, ASSTT. ORDER IS NO T SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. SHE ALSO CHALLENGED THE ADDITION ON ME RIT. LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASS ESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION . HE OBSERVED THAT NUMBER OF NOTICES WE RE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BUT NOBODY TURNED UP FOR MAKING SUBMISSION S ON THE APPEAL. 4. BEFORE US ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT. HOWEVER, AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A ), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW, THER EFORE, WE REJECT THE APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE A PPEAL EX PARTE. SUB ITA NO. 1670/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 3 SECTION 6 OF SECTION 250 MANDATES THE LD. CIT(A) TO DETERMINE THE POINTS IN DISPUTE AND THEREAFTER, LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTH ORITY WOULD RECORD REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THE DECISIONS ON THESE POINTS . LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS FAILED TO ADHERE THIS PROVISION, WHIL E DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A) IS THUS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. WE SET ASIDE TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD. FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY. ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. SH E SHALL MAKE AN APPLICATION BEFORE LD. CIT(A) FOR TAKING UP THE PR OCEEDING, AND SUPPLY THE COPY OF THIS ORDER. IT WOULD ELIMINATE THE GRIE VANCE OF ASSESSEE OF NON RECEIPT OF NOTICE. THE OBSERVATION MADE BY US W ILL NOT IMPAIR OR INJURE THE CASE OF AO OR WOULD NOT CAUSE ANY PREJUD ICE TO THE DEFENCE / EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7.6.2011. SD/- SD/- [K.D. RANJAN] [RAJPAL YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 7.6.2011 VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT ITA NO. 1670/DEL/11 ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07 4 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT