SH. ANWAR UL HAQ HAFFIZ,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH

Grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. That the impugned order is against facts and law.

That no proper and reasonable opportunity has been granted to the appellant to represent his case.

That the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,38,03,000/- as unexplained cash deposits as the appellant had duly explained the source of deposit in the bank accounts along with supporting evidence.

That the worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,38,03,000/- as unexplained cash deposit without appreciating the facts in correct perspective and ignoring all submissions made before him. Therefore, the impugned order is not only illegal but it is also not just and fair and it is contradictory to settled law.

That Authorities below did not confront the assessee with any adverse evidence and/or information used by them against the assessee before passing the order. That Ld. Assessing officer had not confronted the assessee with any alleged discrepancies regarding the bank accounts mentioned in the affidavits submitted by the assessee.

That Authorities below had relied on irrelevant and/or inadmissible material.

That Interest free loan were received through account payee cheques from the persons who advanced interest free loan to assessee and assessee had filed affidavits from the said persons stated that they had given interest free loan to assessee.

That no material was brought on record by the Assessing officer to show that the affidavits filed by the aforesaid persons were not genuine.

That Assessing officer had issued notices/summons to Sh. Vinod Kumar, Sh. Vikas Malhotra and M/s Max Life Soft Network but the same remained uncompiled with. The Assessing officer did not initiate any action against them for

It is, prayed that appeal may kindly be allowed.

During the proceedings before us, the Counsel of the Assessee requested the Bench that no proper and reasonable opportunity was granted to the Assessee by the Assessing Officer to represent this case. Therefore, the Counsel requested that in the interest of justice, the case may be remanded back to the A.O. for fresh adjudication.

The ld. DR, had no objection to this request made by the Assessee.

We have considered the request of the Counsel of the Assessee and his arguments for remanding the matter back to the file of the A.O. and after hearing the arguments of the Counsel of the Assessee as well as of ld. DR, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, the matter is remitted to the file of the A.O., to be decided afresh on merit, in accordance with law, on affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee, no doubt, shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the A.O. All