SRI RAJIB CHOWDHURY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE-6(2)(3), BANGALORE

O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member Thisappeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-14, Bangalore dated 09.01.2018 for Assessment Year 2012-13.

by the assessee are as under. “1. That on the facts of the case, the learned Income tax officer is not right in disallowing the interest paid on Loan.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of case, the Learned Commissioner Appeal's should have observed that the Assessing officer has not recorded satisfaction with regard to genuineness of the transactions entered by the appellant and not provided an opportunity.

3. That the Learned Commissioner Appeal's has not verified that bank statement disbursement of loan amount.

4. That the Learned Commissioner Appeal's has erred both on the facts and in Law.

6. The Appellant hereby reserves the right to add, delete, or amend the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

3. At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the order passed by the CIT(A) is ex-parte qua the assessee. He submitted that the appeal was fixed by CIT(A) for hearing on 05.01.2018 but on this date, the ld. AR of assessee could not appear because of some personal difficulties and thereafter, the impugned order was passed by CIT(A) on 09.01.2018 without providing any further opportunity to 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 adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A). He also submitted that it is noted by CIT(A) in para 2 of his order that the hearing was first fixed on 06.10.2017 and on this date, none appeared on behalf of the assessee but written submission was filed. The CIT(A) has decided the issue on the basis of written submission and therefore, the order of CIT(A) should be confirmed.

4. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that this is true that on 06.10.2017, written submission was filed by assessee before CIT(A) but on this date also, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before CIT(A) and on the subsequent date i.e. 05.01.2018 also, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before CIT(A). Considering the facts of the present case, I feel it fit and proper to restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. Accordingly, I set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides.

5. In view of this decision, no adjudication is called for regarding the merit of the case at the present stage.