EARLANDI MANI,REDHILLS, CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD 10(3) CHE, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI

There is a delay of 268 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 and doing business of manufacturing of rice and paddy and is commission agent. The assessee had filed his return of income on 29.01.2018 admitting total income of Rs.4,95,840/-. The A.O in the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and made addition on cash deposits of Rs.30,42,530/-.

Aggrieved against the addition, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) passed order ex-parte without adjudicating the issue on merits as the assessee has not made compliance to the notices issued.

The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed order ex-parte without adjudicating the issue on merits therefore, one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to substantiate his case before the Ld. CIT(A).

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), relied on the orders of lower authorities and submitted that the orders were passed ex-parte as the assessee has been non compliance to the notices issued.

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 Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of cash deposits amounting to Rs.30,42,530/- u/s. 69A of the Act, due to the non- compliance of the assessee, without adjudicating the issue on merits.

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