NAYANABEN PARESHBHAI JAMNAPARA,AHMEDABAD vs. WARD 4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

The sole issue raised in this appeal by the assessee is relating to the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 23,43,000/- alleging that the assessee has purchased a flat from a builder and the assessee could not explain source of the investment. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that in fact the Assessing Officer had alleged that the assessee had paid 17,00,000/- for the purchase of flat through cheque and the remaining amount of Rs. 6,43,000/- has been paid in cash. The ld. counsel in this respect has submitted that the assessee has not paid any amount of Rs. 6,43,000/- as alleged by the Assessing Officer. That the amount of Rs. 17,00,000/- has been paid out of the disclosed source of income of the assessee. The ld. counsel has further submitted that impugned assessment order of the Assessing Officer as well as impugned order of the CIT(A) is ex-parte order. The ld. counsel has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer. Considering the above submissions, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored back to the file of Assessing Officer on this issue. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer will provide proper opportunity to the assessee to present his case and thereafter to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.