L SHIVALINGAIAH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

by the assessee are as under. “1. The order of the CIT-A is opposed to law and fact of the case.

2. The learned CIT-A erred in not considering the cash withdrawals from State Bank of Hyderabad, A/c. No.62181826947, Austin Town, Bangalore to the extent of Rs.29,25,000/-.

3. The learned CIT-A erred in not considering the cash withdrawn from State Bank of Hyderabad, Austin Town, Bangalore has been deposited to State Bank of Mysore, Sadashivanagar Branch, Bangalore, A/c. No.54001169078.

4. The learned CIT-A erred in not considering that the cash withdrawn from bank has been utilized to meet the drawings.

5. The learned CIT-A erred in considering Rs.3,442/- towards profit during the year as the said income was not earned by your appellant

6. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time hearing the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered.”

3. At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the order of ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte qua the assessee. In reply to query from the bench as to why the assessee has not appeared before ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that assessee is of 80 years of age and because of this reason, the assessee could Page 2 of 2 not appear before ld. CIT(A) and could not authorize any person to appear before ld. CIT(A) and it was requested that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A). He also submitted that it is noted by ld. CIT(A) in para 2 of his order that several notices were issued by ld. CIT(A) to assessee but there was no compliance and there was no request for adjournment also. He submitted that under these facts, no further opportunity should be granted to the assessee.