IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD , BEFORE SHRI SHAILEND RA K UMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . ITA. NO. 4 3 /AHD/20 1 2 (ASSESSMEN T YEAR: 2 00 8 - 0 9 ) PRAVINBHAI ZAVERBHAI MENDPARA C/O M/S. SHIV CORPORATION SURYADARSHAN COMPLEX, RUBBER FACTORY ROAD, BHAVNAGAR - 364001 APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), BHAVNAGAR RESPONDENT PAN: AC CPM7941G / BY APPELLANT : MS. RIDDHI SHAH, A.R. / BY RESPONDENT : SHRI ROOPCHAND , SR.D .R. / DATE OF HEARING : 2 9 . 0 6 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 . 0 6 .201 5 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KU MAR YADAV, J . M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSE E AGAINST THE EX PARTE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - X X , AHM E DABAD, DATED 24 .1 0 . 20 1 1 FOR A.Y. 200 8 - 0 9 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I T A NO. 4 3 /AHD/ 1 2 A.Y. 0 8 - 09 [ PRAVINBHAI Z. MENDPARA VS. IT O ] PAGE 2 1. DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX - PARTE, THUS WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND THUS VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT EITHER AN ADJOURNMENT WAS VERY MUCH SOUGHT, WHEN THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING OR THE APPEL LANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT APPEARING IN THE HEARING AS AND WHEN THE SAME WAS FIXED. 2. CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,19,288/ - , ORIGINALLY MADE BY THE AO BY DISALLOWING PART OF THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT AND SET OF AGAINST CORRESPONDING INTEREST INCOME. 3. NOT APPEARING THE FACT THAT THE DEDUCTION OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.6,19,288/ - WAS CLAIMED AGAINST THE CORRESPONDING INTEREST INCOME OF THIS VERY AMOUNT AND THE SAME WAS CLEARLY REQUIRED TO BE AL LOWED EITHER UNDER SECTION 57(III) OR SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. 4. CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,40,000/ - , ORIGINALLY MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 2. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, MS. RIDDHI SH AH IS THAT ASSESSEE MOVED ADJOURNMENT AT RELEVANT POINT OF TIME . ASSESSEE WAS UNDER IMPRESSION THAT CONCERNED COMMISSIONER WAS TRANSFERRED AND NEW INCUMBENT WAS LIKELY TO TAKE CHARGE. SO, ASSESSEE PRESUMED THAT HEARING IS NOT LIKELY TO TAKE PLACE ON APPOI NTED DATE AND FRESH DATE WILL BE INTIMATED AFTER NEW INCUMBENT TAKE OVER. 2.1 IN VIEW OF ABOVE, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT, H OWEVER, CASE WAS DISMISSED EX PARTE AS MENTIONED ABOVE. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES I T A NO. 4 3 /AHD/ 1 2 A.Y. 0 8 - 09 [ PRAVINBHAI Z. MENDPARA VS. IT O ] PAGE 3 OF T HE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT ATTENDING THE CASE ON PARTICULAR DATE. SO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO HIM TO DECIDE THE SAME AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH PARTIES. SINCE, WE ARE RESTORING THE ISSUE ON PRELIMINARY STAGE, SO, WE ARE REFRAINING TO COMMENT ON MERIT. 3. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF JUNE , 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 30 /06 /2015 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / , / ,