AVINASH RAJENDRAKUMAR GHOLAP,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(5), PUNE, PUNE

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and no regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) was filed for the A.Y. 2017-18. Based on the receipt of information that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs.28,10,150/- during demonetization period in the bank account maintained with Axis Bank and Union Bank of India, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/s.142(1) calling upon the appellant to file the return of income. However, the appellant filed the belated return on 16.11.2019 declaring income of Rs.8,69,440/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of cash deposit of Rs.21,52,000/- for the failure of the appellant to explain the source of the cash deposits.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal ex parte.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.

We heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the relevant material on record. On mere perusal of the contents of Para 3 of the impugned order, it would be clear that although the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC had afforded several opportunities to the appellant but it is evident that on no occasion, reasonable opportunity to respond to the hearing notices was given. Thus, the CIT(A)/NFAC had not given reasonable time to represent the matter offending the principles of natural justice. In the circumstances, we remand the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo disposal of the appeal in accordance with law affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose.