JAHAR DEB,AGARTALA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, AGARTALA, AGARTALA

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the case of the assessee is ex-parte before the ld. AO as well as before CIT (A) though the assessee attended the proceedings before CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT (A) noted that the evidences were not furnished by the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore prayed that in the interest of justice and fair play, these appeals may be

The ld. DR on the other hand relied heavily on the orders of the authorities below.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case the assessment was framed ex-parte when the assessee did not furnish before the ld. AO the documentary evidences/ proofs in respect of cash deposited during the year in the bank account. Similarly, before the ld. CIT (A) the assessee did not furnish evidences finding of which has been recorded by the ld. CIT (A) in para 6.5.3 of the appellate order. Consequently, we restore the issue to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to re-adjudicate the same after taking into account the evidences and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard the assessee. The appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.

In case of penalty appeal of the assessee in since we have already restored the assessment order while adjudicating the quantum appeal of the assessee in Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) would also stand quashed as the very foundation of levy of penalty in the case of the assessee would not more survive. Further, the ld. AO is at liberty to re-initiate the penalty proceeding afresh, if required.