APPASAMY SELLAMUTHU,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TIRUPPUR

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 120 days. The assessee filed an affidavit accompanied by a petition explaining the reasons. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons explained by the assessee are bona fide, which really prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay of 120 days is condoned.

At the outset, it is noted that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the grounds ex parte of the assessee, which is evident from page Nos. 4 to 8 of the impugned order.

Ld. AR, Mr. S. Bhupendran, Advocate, submits that the assessee is ready to prosecute his case before the ld. CIT(A) if this Tribunal affords one more opportunity to the assessee to contest the grounds before the ld. CIT(A).

Ld. DR, Mr. S. Manoj Prakash, JCIT, reported no objection.

We note that the AO determined the income of the assessee at ₹22,38,286 on account of unexplained money/investment, wherein no compliance was made before the ld. CIT(A) in challenging the order of the AO. On perusal of the impugned order at paragraph Nos. 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5, we note that the ld. CIT(A) proceeded to confirm the order of the AO in the absence of any statement from the assessee. Therefore, considering the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for his fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

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