KRISHNAN SARAVANAN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO WARD 2, PALAKKAD

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of authorised service agent of Muthoot Money Transfer and Oxigen Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was filed on 30.07.2017 declaring income of Rs. 3,97,020/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Palakkad (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 23.12.2019 passed Krishnan Saravanan u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 41,28,520/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of cash deposits in the bank account as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act rejecting the explanation of the appellant that the source of cash deposits are out of money collected from customers during demonetisation period. The money so collected was immediately transferred to Muthoot Money Transfer. The appellant also derived commission at 2% on the transfer made.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR.

After hearing the learned Sr. DR I proceed to dispose of this appeal based on the material available on record. On mere perusal of Form 35 it would be evident that the appellant had raised 5 grounds of appeal. However, the CIT(A), without disposing of the grounds of appeal dismissed the appeal. Therefore, I remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction for de novo disposal in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.