PANETAR SAREE,KALYAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3 2 KALYAN, KALYAN

In the instant case the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 19.12.2017 u/s 144(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) has made the addition of Rs.14,63,000/- on account of unexplained sources of cash deposits. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner, however, in spite of sending three notices, made no compliance. Therefore, the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner decided the appeal of the Assessee as ex-parte and ultimately by dismissing the same affirmed the addition. From the impugned order, the conduct of the Assessee appears to be non-compliant and therefore the Assessee do not deserve any leniency, however, considering the specific fact that the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner in the absence of reply/documents failed to decide the issue involved in the instant appeal in its right perspective and proper manner, hence for the just decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to afford one more opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate his claim before the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner. Consequently, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his claim. We clarify that in case of subsequent default the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner accordingly.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.