SIDDHARAJSINH YOGENDRASINH MAHARAUL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

None has put any appearance on behalf of the assessee despite notice. Even on the earlier dates of hearing, no one had put any appearance on behalf of the assessee. Adjournment application has been filed on behalf of the ld. D.R. stating that she was not well. Identical type of application has been filed in all the cases fixed for today. It will not be appropriate to adjourn all the matters. Since there is no complicated issue involved in this appeal and the matter can be decided after going through the records and after hearing the ld. A.R. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after going through the record. 3. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved against the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 22,26,000/- made on account unexplained cash credit in the bank account of the assessee. The plea of the assessee in this case has been that the said cash credit was out of the cash sales made by the assessee. However, a perusal of the impugned order of the CIT(A) would reveal that the same is an ex-parte order passed by ld. CIT(A). The assessee has vide ground no. 1 has agitated against the passing of ex-prate order by the ld. CIT(A). In my view, interests of justice will be well served by giving an opportunity to the assessee to present his case before the ld. CIT(A). In view of the same, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same

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

Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,