RANJANA ASHOK MURKUTE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (2),, PUNE

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे �यायपीठ “एक-सद�य मामला” पुणे म� IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE �ी डी. क�णाकरा राव, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1320/PUN/2019 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ranjana Ashok Murkute, Sr.No.258, Balaji Park, Baner, Haveli, Pune-411018. अपीलाथ�/Appellant PAN : BANPM9560R …. Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), …. ��थ� / Respondent Pune. अपीलाथ� क� ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Sharad Shah ��थ� की ओर से / Respondent by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क� तारीख / घोषणा क� तारीख / Date of Hearing : 19.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 31.12.2019 आदेश / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-3, Pune dated 04.07.2019 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Scrutinizing the transactions of cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee is the core issue in this appeal. 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is a salaried employee and relied on agricultural income as the source of the said cash deposits. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.6,02,844/- in the assessment. Explaining the sources of income, the assessee filed the reply

-2- ITA No.1320/PUN/2019

on 08.12.2018 against the due date of 10.12.2018. It is borne out of the records that the reply of the assessee never considered by the Assessing Officer in the assessment. There is no dispute on this aspect. 4. Further, during the appellate proceedings also, the CIT(A), without considering the assessee’s reply dated 18.06.2019, passed the order on 04.07.2019 against the assessee. In fact, the CIT(A) adjourned the hearing to 15.07.2019 as seen on the face of the reply. Without waiting for his adjournment due date and time, the CIT(A) made the order early before 11 days of the adjournment date ended. 5. On hearing both the sides, I find both the assessment order as well as the CIT(A)’s order were made without considering the assessee’s written replies and evidences. In this regard, ld. Counsel prayed for remanding the entire issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the reply given by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). Therefore, in my view, the request of the assessee is absolutely fair and reasonable. Accordingly, in the set aside proceedings, I direct the CIT(A) to consider the above reply of the assessee and further reply, if any, and adjudicate the issue afresh after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with set principles of natural justice. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

-3- ITA No.1320/PUN/2019