VINOD BANSAL THROUGH LR AMITA BANSAL,ADARSH ESTATE, JAGADHRI TOWN vs. ITO WARD - 5 , YAMUNANAGAR

In the assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,80,12,437/- on account of cash deposits and credit entries in the bank account under section 69A of the Act.

Similarly, in the assessee has challenged the sustenance of addition of Rs. 13,59,000/- on account of cash deposit in the bank account under section 69A of the Act.

At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay in filing both the appeal by 26 Days and 51 Days respectively. The assessees have moved condonation applications alongwith supporting affidavit. After perusal of the same and hearing both the parties, we find that there is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeals. Therefore the delay in filing the appeals is hereby condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Ld. AR ha submitted that both the appeals have been decided ex- parte qua the assessee. It was submitted that the Counsel of the Assessee who was entrusted with the matter has failed to represent the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) which has resulted in passing of the ex-parte order against the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee may be allowed one more opportunity to represent the case and the matter may accordingly be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has been issued numbers of notices by the Ld. CIT(A) and there is a clear negligence on the part of the assessee/counsel to represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A). At the same time, it was submitted that the Revenue has no objection where the matter is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh on merits.

After hearing both the parties and considering the material available on the record specially considering the facts that one of the assessee, Shri Vinod Bansal has since expired and now represented by his legal heir and Wife Amita Bansal who is also assessed separately and her matter is also tagged along and given the lack of professional support by the Counsel of the assessee, we deem it appropriate that the matter be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh as per law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.