IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC , MUMBAI BEFORE SHIRI RAJENDRA SINGH, A.M. ITA NO. : 5322/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. PARESH D. PANCHAMIA HUF 5/6, BHAVESHWAR SHIKAR, R.B. MEHTA ROAD, GHATKOPAR(E), MUMBAI-400 077 PAN NO : AAIHP 4060 K VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 22(1)-4, MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PATIK R. VORA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. C. MAURYA DATE OF HEARING : 30 .11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.12.2011 ORDER PER RAJENDRA SINGH (AM) : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 24.09.2010 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-33 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS RAISED THE ISSUE REGARD ING NOT ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING IN ADDITION TO CHALLE NGING THE MERIT OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACC OUNT, AMOUNTING TO `. 2,87,100/-. ITA NO : 5322/MUM/2011 M/S. PA RESH D. PANCHAMIA HUF 2 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OPENED A NE W ACCOUNT IN JANKALYAN SAHAKARI BANK LTD., AT GHATKOPAR (E) BRAN CH OF SBI IN WHICH THERE WERE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS OF `. 2,87,100/- DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE AO DID NOT FIND THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS SATISFACTORILY AND, ACCORDINGLY, ADDED THE SAID SUM OF `. 2,87,100/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CHALLE NGED THE DECISION OF AO BOTH ON THE MERIT OF THE ADDITION AS WELL AS ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 3. IN APPEAL, CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING GIVEN, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR AT THE T IME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. CIT(A), THEREFORE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL AS UNADMITTED FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTI I NDIA PVT. LTD. (38 ITD 320). AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID DECISION THE ASSESSEE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES PERUSED THE RECORD S AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS REGARDING AN ADDITION OF `. 2,87,100/- DEPOSITED IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. I FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPE AL AS UNADMITTED WITHOUT GIVING ANY DECISION ON THE MERIT OF A CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED TWO GROUNDS BEFORE CIT(A) WHICH RELATED TO T HE MERIT OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS AND LACK OF ADEQUATE OPPOR TUNITY OF HEARING BY THE AO. CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED ANY ORDER ON THE ABOV E TWO GROUNDS. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6), CIT(A) WAS REQUIRED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL IN WRITING AND HE IS REQUIRED TO STATED THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASON FOR THE DECISION. THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH TH E SAID PROVISIONS. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT APPEARED AND THE ORDER HAS TO BE PASSED EX PARTE, CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO DISPOSE OF THE GROUND OF APPE AL ON MERIT, ON THE ITA NO : 5322/MUM/2011 M/S. PA RESH D. PANCHAMIA HUF 3 BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE. I, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIM FOR PASSING A FRESH ORDER ON MERIT AFTE R ALLOWING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 2 ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011. SD/- ( RAJENDRA SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT: 02/12/2011 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT, 2. THE RESPONDENT, 3. THE C.I.T. 4. CIT (A) 5. THE DR, SMC - BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI ROSHANI