, (SMC) , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , ! ' # ' $ . %& , ( * + [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.652/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010. MOHANAN NAIR, 1272/4, GOLDEN COLONY, ANNA NAGAR WEST EXTENSION, CHENNAI 600 050. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 7(4) CHENNAI. [PAN AAMPM 8860G] ( ,- / APPELLANT) ( ./,- /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MS. B. JAISHEILA, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. B. SAGADEVAN, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 06-08-2018 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-08-2018 0 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 20.12.2017 OF LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, CHENNAI, IT IS AGGRIEVED THAT LD. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DECIDED EX-PARTE. ITA NO.652 /2018 :- 2 -: 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. AO WERE UPHELD BY THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITHOUT GIVING A FAIR CHANCE TO THE A SSESSEE TO PRESENT HIS CASE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE, ADDITIONS OF ?1,75,000/-, 4,06,938 AND ?4,32,170/- WERE ALL EXPL AINABLE AND SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOKED. 3. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT DES PITE GIVING NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES, ASSESSEE DID NOT EN TER APPEARANCE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. PARA 5 TO 7 OF T HE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUND ER:- 5. THE RECORDS INDICATE THAT THE DATES OF HEARIN G WERE FIXED ON VARIOUS DATES AS BELOW:- SL.NO DATE OF HEARING STATUS 1 06.05.2016 ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT 2 30.06.2016 ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT 3 20.07.2016 ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT 4 08.12.2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PLACED ON RECORD NONE APPEARED. 6. TILL THE DATE OF PASSING THIS ORDER I.E. 20.12.2017 , THERE IS NEITHER A REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT NOR HAS ANYONE ITA NO.652 /2018 :- 3 -: APPEARED ON APPELLANTS BEHALF, NOR IS THERE A WRIT TEN SUBMISSION, BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CASE . 7. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, I FIND NO RE ASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER. ASSESSEE HAD ASSAILED THE ADDITIONS MADE FOR UNEXPL AINED CASH CREDITS OF ?1,75,000/-, ?4,06,938/- AND UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT OF ?4,32,170/-, BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). WE FIND THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DID GIVE THE ASSESSEE FOUR CHANCE TO ENTER APPEARANCE. HOWEVER I N THREE INSTANCES ATLEAST, ADJOURNMENT LETTERS WERE FILED. NOW SUBMI SSION OF LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IS THAT ASSESSEE COULD N OT ENTER APPEARANCE DUE TO REASONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL AND SH OULD BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE. LD. AUTH ORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS ALSO GIVEN AN UNDERTAKING BEFORE THE BENCH THAT IF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN, ASSESSEE WOULD CERTA INLY ENTER APPEARANCE BEFORE LD.CIT(A). IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE COULD BE GIVEN ONE MOR E OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS GROUNDS BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS). WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND REMIT THE CASE BACK TO HIS FILE FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ITA NO.652 /2018 :- 4 -: 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 7 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ' # ' $ . %& ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED:7TH AUGUST, 2018. KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF