SRI A. ELUMALAI,,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, WARD,, KANCHEEPURAM

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai in dated 20.08.2019 relevant to the Assessment Year 2016-17.

The facts are in brief that the assessee is an individual deriving income from Milk agency in the name and style of M/s. Swami Vivekananda Agency since 2015. The assessee has filed his return of 2 -: income for Assessment Year 2016-17 by admitting total income of Rs. 2,42,140/- The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee Shri A. Elumalai appeared in person. Subsequently, the A.O was issued another letter on 08.10.2018 calling for details. In response to the letter issued by the A.O, the assessee appeared in person and furnished copies of vouchers and bank statements. From the details filed by the assessee, the A.O has noted that during the course of discussion, the assessee is engaged in Milk agency and running business in the name and style of M/s. Swami Vivekananda Agency since, 2015. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O has asked the assessee to furnish an explanation as to why the cash deposit of demonetization period i.e., (9th November to 30th December) is reported as per SFT reporting, No return was filed for preceding assessment year and current year return filed after 07.11.2016. The assessee was asked to produce bank statement for all the accounts maintained during financial year 2015-16 and also copy of agreement. The assessee has not appeared for the hearing on 15.11.2018 and there was no response from the assessee.

On appeal before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that one more opportunity may be given to substantiate his case before the A.O and also submitted that all the details in respect of commission earned by the assessee are ready to produce before the A.O.

We have heard both the sides through video conferencing, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In this case, despite various opportunities given, the assessee has not able to furnish complete details before the Assessing Officer. However, in order to substantiate the claim of the assessee, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has pleaded before us that 4 -: the assessee may be given one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, to meet the ends of natural justice, we are of the opinion that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to substantiate his case before the A.O. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of A.O to decide the issue de novo in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to file all relevant material to substantiate his case before the A.O. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.