TULSHIRAM SHINDE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

On hearing both the sides, we find that amongst other grounds, assessee also raised a ground that Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. Though, Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the impugned order, we find that NFAC in the impugned order mentions of the notices being issued, however, mode and service of notices are not reflected in the impugned order. Form No. 35 reflects e-mail address provided by the assessee, who also mentioned that notices may be sent through email, however, the impugned NFAC order lacks of details to show such services. On further hearing, we find that the assessee has also relied on additional evidences with regard to establishing the identity of the parties and genuineness of the transactions, apparently Ld. AO observes that assessee has not provided the details including PAN of the purchasers which made the cash deposits suspicious.

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we consider it appropriate to restore the issues on merits as well as law to the file of Ld. AO for denovo adjudication. Before framing the assessment, Ld. AO shall give the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing to substantiate his case. Corresponding ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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