YATISH WALMIK MADHAVI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(3)(4), NAVI MUMBAI

This appeal filed by the assessee on 22.6.2016 is against the order of the CIT (A)-26, Mumbai dated 29.04.2014 for the assessment year 2009-2010.

The only issue raised in this appeals relates to the addition on account of cash deposits in bank and the sources thereof. It is an admitted position that nobody represented the assessee before the Assessing Officer or the CIT (A). Therefore, the proceedings were completed ex-parte. 3. During the proceedings before the Tribunal, Ld Counsel for the assessee not only filed an affidavit dated 02.01.2017 stating that the non-attendance before the officers has the support of string genuine reasons and relied on the contents of the said affidavit. On the merits, Ld Counsel for the assessee filed a paper book containing additional evidence. Before me, Ld Counsel for the assessee requested for remanding the issue to the file of the AO for fresh examination and decision after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Considering the illiteracy in tax matters and other peculiar facts, I order for remanding to AO’s file. AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of