KUPPURAJ ARUNKUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE

Brief facts are that the assessee during demonetization period had deposited Rs.24,72,400/- however, total deposits during the entire financial year 2 2016-17 was Rs.28,10,489/-. The AO observed that out of total deposits of Rs.28,10,489/- in financial year 2016-17, Rs.23,75,000/- deposited in the bank account was unexplained. Hence, in the absence of explanation AO proceeded ex- parte assessment u/s 144 of the Act and made an addition u/s 69A as unexplained money. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same since the assessee failed to make any representation therein. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. During hearing none has appeared for assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR has pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.

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. Accordingly, the appeal is restored back to learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with disposal of appeal on merits.

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.