SATCHIT KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 14(2), NEW DELHI

An adjournment application was filed by the assessee seeking adjournment of the case on the ground of illness. However, considering the fact that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order and has not decided the issue on merit, therefore, the adjournment application is rejected and the matter is being decided on the basis of the material available on record and after hearing the ld. DR.

After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the orders of the authorities below, I find the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary from M/s Kross Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. He filed his return of income on 23rd July, 2013 declaring an income of Rs.1,80,000/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued from time to time in response to which the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 143(3) on 29th March, 2016 determining the total income at Rs.8,20,000/- where he made addition of Rs.6,40,000/- u/s 69 of the IT Act on account of cash deposit into bank account maintained with Axis Bank. Since none appeared on behalf of the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) in the ex parte order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to give one final opportunity to the assessee and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) and substantiate his case failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes.