DORAIRAJ,CUDDALRE vs. ACIT, CUDDALORE CIRCLE,, CUDDALRE

Assessee is an individual and filed his returns of income for AY 2015- 16 on 31.10.2015 declaring the total income of Rs.21,93,110/- and for AY - 2 - & 90/Chny/2024 2016-17 on 17.10.2016 declaring the total income of Rs.31,91,310/- . The case was selected for limited scrutiny throgh CASS for the reasons mismatch of sales turnover reported in Audit Report and ITR, large increase in unsecured loans during year and large cash deposits in savings bank account. The assessing officer (‘AO’ in short) while framing assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 254 dated 28.09.2021 for AY 2015-16 made an addition of Rs.54,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Act whereas in AY 2016-17 vide order dated 24.12.2018 u/s 143(3) made an addition of Rs.2,13,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Act. Being aggrieved assessee challenged the aforesaid orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s 254 dated 28.09.2021 and u/s 143(3) dated 24.12.2018 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the ld.CIT(A) wherein the assessee has not given proper chance to substantiate and prosecute the appeal hence, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on merits.

At the outset, Ld.AR for the appellant submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had not properly followed the principles of natural justice. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further prayed that if an adequate opportunity of hearing is given before ld.CIT(A), assessee will substantiate and prosecute the appeal properly. The Ld. Addl.CIT-DR relied upon order of ld.CIT(A) and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 4. We have gone through the orders of lower authorities and submissions addressed by the parties before us. We find that ld.CIT(A) has not given effective opportunity of hearing to appellant both cases to substantiate and prosecute the appeals. We also observe that in AY 2015-16, all the