IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) ITA NO. 2121/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 MRS. RAJU TIRATH RAMCHANDANI, 603, 21, PREMODYAN HOUSING SOCIETY, PLOT. NO. 295-296, 12 TH ROAD, KHAR (W), MUMBAI- 400 052. PAN- AEBPR3611P VS. THE ITO 19(1)(2), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI. DR. K. SHIVARAM & MS. ADITYA R. AJGAONKAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. MANOJ J. KUMAR DATE OF HEARING: 29/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29/06/2016 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, AM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST AN EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), UPHOLDING AN ADDITION MAD E TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN TEMPLETON FOR RS. 14 LAKHS U/S 69 BY THE AO , THAT WAS ALSO, ON AN EX PARTE ORDER U/S 144 R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT. 2. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT STATING, INTER-ALIA, THAT THE APPELLANT IS A RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF MIDDAY MULTIMEDIA GROUP, ABOVE 65 YEARS OF AGE AND SHE APPOINTED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES P.C.ANJANIA & CO, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND SHARMA 2 ITA NO. 2121/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 RAMESH & CO. TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HOWEVER, DUE TO VARIOUS REASONS, THEY IN ADVERTENTLY FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), RESPECTIVELY. 3. THE APPELLANT MADE AN APPLICATION TO HSBC BANK TO OBTAIN THE COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS REQUIRED TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF FUND S FOR THE INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, HSBC BANK REFUSED TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE COPIES AND HENCE SHE HAD REPRESENTED BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN AT THE RESERVE BAN K OF INDIA. AFTER THE INTERVENTION OF THE OMBUDSMAN, HSBC HAS PROVIDED TH E COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS WHICH IS BEING PRODUCED AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT IN TEMPLETON FUND WAS MADE OUT OF FUNDS ORIGINATING FROM THE SALARY ACCOUNT. CONSIDER ING THE APPELLANTS STATUS, AGE AND THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS P LEADED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BE ADMITTED AND THE JUSTICE RENDERED. THE AR PLEADED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT AND APPEAL ORDERS ARE PASSED EXPARTE, TH E AO SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD D.R OPPOSED THE PLEA MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED. SINCE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENC ES REQUIRE EXAMINATION, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES DE-NOVO CONSID ERATION AT THE END OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CI T(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE AFRESH BY CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE US AND ALSO DULY CONSIDERING INFORMATION AND EXPLANATIONS THAT MAY BE FURNISHED BEFORE HIM. AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT, THE AO MAY PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 3 ITA NO. 2121/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JUNE, 2016 SD/- (B.R.BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED: 29/06/2016 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. !' , $ !'% , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. &' ( / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ) //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI PRAMILA