SOMUGOUNDER MOHAN,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

The registry has noted a delay of 312 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of affidavit of the assessee. Considering the contents of affidavit and period of delay, the delay is condoned and we proceed with disposal of the appeal on merits.

During hearing, Ld. AR has pleaded for another opportunity of hearing which has been opposed by Ld. Sr. DR. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made certain additions of cash deposits since the assessee failed to make any representation therein. During appellate proceedings, the assessee sought admission of additional evidences which was rejected by Ld. CIT(A) and the assessment was confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

Though the assessee has remained negligent, however, keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The additional evidences shall be considered by Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is directed to substantiate its case and supply the requisite information forthwith failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with disposal of appeal on merits on the basis of material on record.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 3rd June, 2024 (ABY T. VARKEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) "ाियक सद" /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे4ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :03-06-2024 DS आदेशकीHितिलिपअ'ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. " थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु=/CIT, Salem. 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडBफाईल/GF