14Anuradha Reddy Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam)
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that dismissal of appeal and passing of ex-parte order by CIT(A) in absence of any response on behalf of the assessee untenable since CIT(A) failed to decide the case on merits.
Facts- The assessee is an individual. AO observed that the assessee made cash deposits in her bank account during demonetization period to the tune of Rs. 34 lakhs. AO observed that the assessee has no explanation to offer the nature and source of such cash deposits and therefore the explanation given by the assessee is not satisfactory. AO considered that the assessee’s cash deposits are not fully and properly explained as to its source on the dates of deposits and therefore the entire deposits are treated as unexplained income of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act and brought to tax under the head ‘income from other sources’. AO made addition of Rs. 34,00,000/- U/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and also initiated the penalty proceedings U/s. 271F and U/s. 271AAC of the Act and passed the assessment order U/s. 144 of the Act.
CIT(A) passed ex-parte order in absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
