M/S RAJARAM & CO.,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-3, AJMER

There is a marginal delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. After going through the reasons for delay in filing the appeal, I am satisfied that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal.

I found from the record that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by passing ex parte order wherein addition of Rs. 6,09,969/- was confirmed. It was the contention of the ld AR of the assessee that notice issued by the ld. CIT(A) fixing the date of hearing was not served on the assessee, accordingly, the assessee could not attend on the date of the appeal fixed before the ld. CIT(A). He also invited our attention to the various details filed before the lower authorities in the form of cash flow statement, partnership deed, details of contract receipts for the A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16, details of expenditure on material and direct and indirect expenses. Our attention was also invited to the cash withdrawn from the bank and subsequent deposit in the bank account. However, without going into the merit of the appeal, I found that the ld. CIT(A) by passing ex parte order had confirmed the addition without giving any reasoning on the merits of the addition. Keeping in view the reason for non-appearance before the ld. CIT(A) and in the substantial interest of justice, I restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh as per provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also ITA 1331/JP/2018 3 M/s Rajaram & Co. Vs. ITO directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case of any failure on the part of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass order as per the material placed on record.

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