PRANAY JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 58(6), NEW DELHI

Facts, in brief, are that the assessee, an individual, filed his return of income on 23.08.2018 declaring income of Rs. 4,17,020/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. The reason for limited scrutiny, is stated to be cash deposited during demonetization period. The AO noticed that assessee had earned salary amounting to Rs. 2,40,000/- per annum and tuition income of Rs. 2,90,700/- per annum, however, he deposited a sum of Rs. 11,98,000/- during the period of demonetization. The AO found the explanation offered by the assessee as unexplained and made addition of entire amount deposited by the assessee, thus assessing income at Rs. 16,15,020/-. Aggrieved against this the assessee filed appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against this assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee stated that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity by the authorities below. However, there was no representation on behalf of the Revenue.

We have heard learned authorized representative of the assessee and perused the material available on record. We find that one of the grounds of the assessee in the form of grounds of appeal is that no effective opportunity was granted to the assessee and the assessee’s counsel missed the notice. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in order to subserve the interest of substantial justice to both the parties, we are inclined to set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of learned CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh, of course, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly.

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes only.