SINGARAYAN BHARATHI FLORANCE JASMINE,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW 5(2), COIMBATORE

There is a delay of 70 days in filing the appeal by the assessee.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed return of income therefore, the A.O on the basis of information that she has deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 16,20,000/-, has reopened the assessment. The A.O has made addition of cash deposit of Rs. 16,20,000/- as the assessee has not explained of source of cash deposit. Aggrieved the same, the assessee has filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has passed order ex-parte by confirming the addition as the assessee has not replied to the notices issued.

The Ld. AR before us has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed order ex-parte and therefore, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate his case before the Ld. CIT(A). :- 3 -:

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 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 being heard. 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. Order pronounced on 31st July, 2024. (मनु कुमार िग"र) (जगदीश) (Manu Kumar Giri) (Jagadish) "ाियक सद! / Vice President लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य /Accountant Member सद"य चे"ई/Chennai, "दनांक/Dated: 31st July, 2024. EDN/- :- 4 -: