KARUPPIAH MEENACHI,THIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD-5, THIRUNELVELI

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and running petrol/diesel outlet. The assessee has filed return of income on 20.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 6,54,280/-. The assessment was completed making addition of Rs. 9,61,798/- on account of difference in sundry creditor of Rs. 1,58,968/-, difference in bank balance as shown in return of income 3,08,028/- and 10% of expenses of Rs. 4,94,802/-. Aggrieved the same, the assessee has filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has passed order ex- parte as the assessee has not complied with the notices issued.

The Ld. AR before us has submitted that the first notice was issued on 19.01.2021 which falls under Covid period and therefore, could not be complied with. As regards to the other notices, the Ld. AR has submitted that notices could not be complied as the assessee did not receive the notice. The Ld. A.R further submitted that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate his case before the Ld. CIT(A).

On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

We have heard the rival contentions, and perused the materials available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed :- 3 -: the appeal without hearing the assessee as the assessee has not responded to the notices. We are of the opinion that keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate this appeal afresh in accordance with law. We also direct the Assessee to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the date of hearing without fail. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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