EKANATHGOUDA R NAGANUR,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, GADAG

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

Tax effect relating to Grounds of Appeal each Ground of appeal (see note below)

1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is illegal, baseless and opposed to the facts of the case.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,92,870 to the returned income Rs. 57,861/- being payments covered u/s 40A(3) i.e., cash exceeding Rs.20000 to each party per day.

3. The learned Commissioner of Rs. 1,04,580/- Page 2 of 3 Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,48,600 being payment covered u/s 40A(3) 4. The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,85,605/- Rs.9,52,014 being difference in balances of Sundry creditors.

5. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.5,40,000 being the amount Rs. 1,62,000/- credited to the capital account of the assessee during the year treating it as unexplained investment.

before or at the time of hearing Total tax effect (see note below) Rs. 4,57,110

3. At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that as noted by CIT(A) in Para 3 of his order, three dates were fixed by him for hearing i.e. 20.08.2018, 11.10.2018 and 25.10.2018. She submitted an affidavit of assessee in which it is explained that on the first date of hearing fixed on 20.08.2018, the auditor of assessee could not appear as he was not well and could not even obtain adjournment as he was not well and was advised rest by doctors. Regarding the second date of hearing fixed on 11.10.2018, it is stated in the affidavit that the assessee has to go to Davangere to attend to his daughter as she was not well as she met with an accident and therefore, the assessee had to rush to that place and could not inform the auditor also. Regarding the last date fixed on 25.10.2018, it is submitted in the affidavit that the assessee was in business tour and was not aware of Page 3 of 3 the notice and hence, could not appear. He submitted that under these facts, the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A).

4. I have considered the rival submissions and I find that this is true that only three dates of hearing were fixed by CIT(A) and the assessee has submitted an affidavit explaining the reasons why proper compliance could not be made before CIT(A) on these three dates of hearing. In view of this, I feel it proper to restore this matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. I order accordingly. I set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this decision, no adjudication on merit is called for at the present stage.