GAURAV PRAVIN KAMDAR,AHEMEDABAD vs. ITO 17(1)(4), MUMBAI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though notice of hearing was send by registered post on more than one occasion. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.

We have heard learned DR and perused the record. The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration declaring a total income of ` 3,50,424/-. The Assessing Officer received AIR information relating to the assessee to the effect that the assessee has deposited huge amount of cash in the savings bank account maintained with Kapol Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Union Bank of India. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has deposited a sum of ` 365.05 lakhs in the bank accounts. Since the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer and did not offer explanation for the deposits, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment to the best of his judgement u/s. 144 of the Act adding entire amount of ` 365.05 lakhs to the total income of the assessee.

Before the learned CIT(A) also, the assessee did not appear and offer any explanation. Hence the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the addition. Before us also assessee did not appear. However, we are of the view, that in the interest of natural justice, the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to present his case. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore the same to the file of the learned CIT(A) for examining the issue afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to cooperate with the learned CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the assessee.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.