PALANIAPPA TRADERS ,SALEM vs. ITO WARD 1(2), SALEM

There is a delay of 175 days in filing the appeal by the assessee.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed any return of income. The A.O has made addition of Rs. 14,22,493/- u/s. 144 of the Act. The addition was made in respect of cash deposit on demonetization currency of Rs. 10,73,000/- and estimation of income post demonetization @ 8% in bank 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 made by A.O 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).

On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. :- 3 -:

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. The Ld. AR has given reasons for non compliance. We are of the opinion that keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, the assessee be provided with another opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned orders are set-aside and the matter is remanded 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.