DEVIKARANI RAJESWARAN,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VELLORE

There is a delay of 310 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the petition/affidavit of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is hereby condoned.

The assessee is an individual, filed her return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 07.10.2017, admitting total income of Rs.3,49,840/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason that the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.17,81,000/- during demonetization period. The assessee has explained the source of cash deposits as arising out of her money lending business. However, the A.O has accepted cash deposits only to the extent of Rs.1,44,000/- as family savings and made addition of Rs. 16,37,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the said addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the assessee did not respond to the notices issued and failed to substantiate the source of the cash deposits with supporting documentary evidence. Devikarani Rajeswaran

The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. A.R) contended that the Ld. CIT(A) passed order ex-parte without giving sufficient opportunity to substantiate her case. It was therefore submitted that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to present her case before the Ld. CIT(A).

The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. D.R) relied on the orders of the lower authorities and requested that the appeal be dismissed. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte as the assessee had not responded to the notices issued and had also not explained the nature and source of the cash deposits with supporting evidence. In our considered opinion, sufficient opportunity was not provided to the assessee before confirming the addition made under section 69A of the Act. However, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee to substantiate her case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in Devikarani Rajeswaran