KAMALABAI LOYA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act). The returns, filed by her for the assessment year 1993 -94, were processed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -II, Hyderabad, and an order was passed on 30.12.1994. However, he proposed to rectify the said order, by incorporating some more items. Therefore, he issued a show cause notice, dated 26.02.1996, to the appellant to explain as to why Income from House Property, being Rs.17,600/ -, be not added. Stating that in spite of receiving show cause notice, dated 26.02.1996, the appellant did not submit any explanation, the Income Tax Officer passed an order, dated 03.09.1996 under Section 154 of the Act. An additional amount of Rs.25,415/ - was also levied. Aggrieved by that, the appellant approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal was dismissed, through order, dated 19.02.1997. Thereupon, the appellant filed I.T.A.No.1393/Hyd/1997 before the Hyderabad Bench A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

(2.) ONE of the contentions urged by the appellant was that though the explanation to the show cause notice was submitted, on 02.04.1996, the Income Tax Officer did not take the same into account. The Tribunal, however, refused to accept the contention that it was raised for the first time before it. On merits also, it opined that the explanation cannot be accepted. Hence, this appeal under Section 260 -A of the Act. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department.

(3.) IN an appeal preferred before the Tribunal, a specific contention was urged by the appellant to the effect that the explanation submitted by her was not taken into account. In addition to that, a miscellaneous petition under Section 254(2) of the Act, was filed in relation to the said reply. The Tribunal was not sure as to whether the reply was submitted by the appellant, as a matter of fact. In our view, it has virtually glossed over the issue by making certain superficial observations. They read: