Ratna Kumari Koppisetty Vs ITO (ITAT Visakhapatnam)
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that confirmation of addition by CIT(A) due to non-appearance by assessee. Accordingly, matter remanded back with direction to give one more opportunity of being heard.
Facts- The assessee is an individual, engaged in the business as Kerosene dealers in Rajahmundry. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS “Limited Category” to verify the sources for “Cash deposits during demonetisation period”. AO observed that assessee could not produce details relating to the basis for arriving at the income. Accordingly, AO proceeded to complete the assessment by considering the normal gross profit in this line of trade and determined the income of the assessee at Rs.14,02,250/ by making addition of Rs.9,86,980/- being 8% of Rs.1,23,37,238/- under “income from business”. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that even though the Ld. CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions, assessee could not appear nor complied to the notices issued. Considering the submissions of the Ld. AR and totality of facts and keeping in view the additions / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, I am of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the principles of natural justice, I am of the view that it is a fit case to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration and the assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and in turn Ld. CIT(A) call for remand report, if necessary, and dispose off the case on merits.
