SUGIRTHARAJ JACKSON PAL,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(1), CHENNAI

The assessee deposited cash of Rs. 21,28,000/- in his bank account during the demonetization period relevant to the assessment year. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act, and made an addition of Rs.17,48,000/- 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 ex-parte due to non- compliance with the notices issued.

The Ld. A.R has contended that sufficient opportunity was not provided to the assessee either before A.O or before Ld. CIT(A) and both the orders have been passed ex-pare and therefore, the case may be remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration in the interest of justice.

The Learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the appeal was dismissed ex-parte without considering the submissions of the assessee. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that, in the interest of justice and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by both the AO and the Ld. CIT(A), and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication denovo in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing and furnish all necessary documents and explanations to support his claim. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.