SEEMABH ALI,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 25(3), , KOLKATA

2. The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the lower authorities in making/confirming the addition of Rs.9,26,116/- into the income of the assessee on account of cash deposit during demonetization period. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). He has & 1755/Kol/2024 Seemabh Ali, AY. 2017-18 further submitted that the assessee is a lady and was not conversant with the technical procedures involved in the assessment of income and, therefore, her case remained unrepresented before the AO in the assessment proceedings. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that necessary details were furnished before the Ld. CIT(A), however, the revenue authorities have not properly appreciated the evidence filed. The Ld. Counsel, therefore, has submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO so that the assessee may explain the small deposits made during the demonetization period.

The Ld. DR has not agreed to the same. Considering the above submissions, in our view, the interest of justice will be served if the assessee is allowed to present her case and explain the source of the deposit before the AO. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for passing a fresh order in this respect after considering the explanations and submissions, if any, submitted by the assessee. The assessee is also directed to promptly participate in the proceedings before the AO and furnish the necessary details. In view of this, the present appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in stands allowed for statistical purposes and of the assessee is treated as allowed.