Faridabanu Shaikh Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
In matter abovementioned ITAT remanded the matter to the CIT (A) who passed ex-parte order without mentioning to any proper service of notice of hearing.
The assessee earned income from selling milk and filed her return for AY 2017-18 declaring income of Rs.1,78,110/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny with the reason of “large value cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to returned income”. The AO observed that, there was a closing cash book balance of Rs.12,84,371/- which is claimed to have been accumulated over the period of last five years and there was not a single withdrawal towards any of the expenses from the cash books furnished for the last five years. AO doubted the genuineness and made an addition of Rs.11 lakhs u/s.69A as unexplained money of the assessee, which was deposited during the period of demonetization. Appeal before CIT (A) was dismissed ex-parte.
Before ITAT assessee submitted that CIT (A) passed order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard on the other hand revenue supported order passed by lower authorities.
ITAT held that the order passed by the CIT(A) is ex-parte and without mentioning any proper service of notice as contained in Paragraph No.4 of the order of the CIT(A). Therefore, it would be appropriate if this matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper verification and adjudication.
