MAHANTINAMATHA MANJUNATHA ,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HOSAPETE

At the time of hearing, both parties fairly conceded that the assessment order as well as the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC are ex parte. The ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the Mahantinamatha Manjunatha, Bellary Page 2 of 3 assessee could not represent his case before both the authorities and accordingly prayed that one more opportunity may be granted before the AO to substantiate his claim. Further, we take note of the fact that the authorities below have not considered the CBDT circulars in order to verify the substantial cash deposits during the demonetization period. Even the AO during the assessment proceedings has not considered the relevant CBDT circulars that were issued for the purposes of verifying the demonetized cash deposited during the year under consideration. This being so, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit & proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of AO for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the revenue authorities and file the necessary documents/submissions/ information/books & records which would be essential and required by the revenue authorities for proper adjudication of the case. We clarify that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled to any leniency. It is ordered accordingly.

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

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file