MURUGESAN SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 18(1), CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 511 /2019 :- 2 -:

The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.

The appellant is an individual deriving income under the head ‘’Salary’’. The return of income for the Asst. Year 2014-15 was filed on 21.09.2015 disclosing total income of � 1,92,850/-.

Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 18(1), Chennai vide order dated 07.12.2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) at total income of �81,65,288/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made additions in respect of unexplained cash deposited in UCO Bank to the tune of �13,96,500/-, unexplained investment of �51,85,535/- and long term capital gains of �12,90,405/-.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before ld. CIT(A), 3. who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal.

Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant 4. is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on 5. record. It is submitted that ld. CIT(A) had not granted sufficient

ITA No. 511 /2019 :- 3 -: and reasonable opportunity of being heard while disposing the appeal.

Submissions made by the assessee has not been controverted by the ld. Departmental Representative. In the circumstances, we remit the issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits of the appeal after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly 6. allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 21st day of October, 2019, at Chennai.