SUNIL BIRADAR PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of ld CIT(A) in confirming the addition relating to cash deposits made into the bank account of the assessee.

The ld AR submitted that the ld CITA() has passed ex-parte order on the reasoning that the assessee did not appear before him.

We heard the ld DR and perused the record. On perusal of Form No.35 filed by the assessee before Ld CIT(A), we notice that the assessee has given address of Mr. Suresh Muthukirshnan, C.A, as the address to which the notices may be sent by ld CIT(A). Accordingly, in all probabilities, the notices would have been set by the office of Ld CIT(A) to the address of the Chartered Accountant mentioned above. Hence the explanation of the assessee that there was change in his address is not relevant/appropriate in the instant case. Accordingly we are of the view that the assessee has not offered proper explanations for not appearing before ld CIT(A). At the same time, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to present its case before ld CIT(A). Since there was no proper explanation for not appearing before Ld CIT(A), we impose a cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) upon the assessee, which shall paid to the credit of Income-tax Department as ‘other fees’ within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal by the assessee. Subject to the payment of above cost, we set aside the order passed by ld CIT(A) and restore all the issue to the file of ld CIT(A) for examining it afresh. We also direct the assessee to fully cooperate with the ld CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

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