SRI MANNU ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), MYSORE

Shri Mannu, Property No. 136, D-19, The Income Tax Saowan Apartment, Officer, Opp: Dasaprakash Paradise Hotel, vs. Ward – 1 [1], Yadavagiri, Mysuru. Mysuru – 570 020. PAN: AMYPM9492L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ravishankar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 16.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 18.01.2019 O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

by the assessee are as under. “1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant, are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in disposing off the appeal without allowing sufficient, real, effective and meaningful opportunity to the appellant to represent the case under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case.

3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 21,28,298/- as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case.

4. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest u/s.234-A and 234B of the Act. which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and the levy deserves to be cancelled.

5. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal may be allowed and Justice rendered and the appellant may be awarded costs in prosecuting the appeal and also order for the refund of the institution fees as part of the costs.”

Page 2 of 2 3. It was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that it is noted by CIT(A) in para 3 of his order that during the appellate proceedings, an opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee but the notice of hearing was returned unserved with the postal remark “addressee left without instructions”. He submitted that therefore, it is clear that notice of hearing was not served on the assessee. He submitted that new address was provided by assessee to CIT(A) but he sent the order to the old address and therefore, it was not served on the assessee. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A).