- (1.) This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), against the order dated September 27, 2012, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") for the assessment year 2008-09, claiming the following substantial questions of law: "A. Whether the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, was justified in accepting the reason for withdrawal and subsequently deposit of in the savings bank account pertains to purchase of some property which ultimately not materialised without any documentary evidence? B. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 43,01,000 in the case wherein the assessee has failed to furnish the sources of deposits of Rs. 43,01,000 in the savings bank account before the Assessing Officer and even before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in violation of the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT, 1977 107 ITR 938 (SC) wherein it has been held that where nature and source of receipt, whether it be on money or other property should be satisfactorily explained by the assessee?" Put shortly, the facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal, as mentioned therein, are that the assessee filed his return of income on April 15, 2009, declaring a total income of Rs. 3,67,300 and agriculture income at Rs. 7,00,000. The said return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on March 23, 2010, and the case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the sources of investment amounting to Rs. 43,01,000 in his bank accounts. The assessee having failed to furnish satisfactory explanation, the said amount was added in the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated December 29, 2010 (annexure A-1), framed the assessment on the total taxable income at Rs. 53,99,610 including the agricultural income of Rs. 7,00,000 treating the same as income from undisclosed sources. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for brevity, "the CIT(A)"). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), vide order dated January 2, 2012 (annexure A-2), confirmed the addition of Rs. 43,01,000 made by the Assessing Officer. Further, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while confirming the agricultural income as income from undisclosed sources up to Rs. 50,000 directed the Assessing Officer to assess Rs. 6,50,000 as the agricultural income for rate purposes only. Still dissatisfied, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal who, vide order dated September 27, 2012 (annexure A-3), deleted the addition of Rs. 43,01,000 made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal, while reversing the findings of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), had not passed the reasoned speaking order which is the mandate as laid down by the hon'ble apex court.
(3.) As per the office report, the respondent has been served but no one has chosen to appear and defend the order passed by the Tribunal.;