RATHINAM RAVICHANDRAN ,THIRUPPATHUR vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE -1 MADURAI, MADURAI

Ld. Counsel for assessee argued that an opportunity of being heard may be provided by the ld. CIT(A), also prayed for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative pleaded for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to appear before the ld. first appellate authority.

From the case record, it emerges that Assessing Officer made addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act on account of non furnishing of evidence for receipts. Upon further appeal, the assessee did not appear before the first appeal authority. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed against which assessee is in further appeal before us.

We have perused the reasons given in para 6& 7 of the affidavit for delay in filing the present appeal which are sufficient cause, hence, condone the delay of 20 days and admitted the appeal. Further, we concur with the submissions of Ld. Sr. DR however keeping in mind the principle of natural justice we deem it fit to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate his case with corroborative evidences forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed with the disposal of the appeal on merits subject to cost of Rs.5000/- which shall be deposited by the assessee within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to ‘Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority’ at Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The proof of the same may be furnished to the Ld. CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in for assessment year 2017-2018 is allowed for statistical purpose.