, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.946/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) MR. A.N.F.HABEEBULLAH, OLD NO.282, NEW NO.18, DEENSHA BUILDING, 2 ND FLOOR, PURASAWALKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI-600 007. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD-VI(2), CHENNAI-34. PAN: AAAPH6083Q ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. M.KARUNAKARAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 22 ND JUNE, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 ST JULY, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY T HE EX-PART ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10, CHENNAI DATED 05.02.2016 IN ITA NO.102/CIT(A)-10/2014-15 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) & 250(6) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE SEVERAL GROUNDS, HOW EVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS AS FOLLOWS:- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,29,34, 956/- 2 ITA NO.946/MDS/2016 MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT O F UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY / LOAN CREDITORS. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL EARNING BUSINESS INCOME / INCOME FROM HO USE PROPERTY FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2011-12. THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 27.3.2014 WHEREIN THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,29, 34,956/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED NEW CREDITORS. ON APPEAL , THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIR MED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY AN EX -PARTE ORDER AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM A T THE TIME OF HEARING. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT HE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DUE TO THE WEDDING FUNCTION AND RELATED CEREMONIES OF HIS SON. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCED BEFORE U S THE WEDDING INVITATION CARD OF HIS SON TO JUSTIFY HIS C LAIM. HE FURTHER PLEADED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE PR OVIDED FOR REPRESENTING THE CASE BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESS ING 3 ITA NO.946/MDS/2016 OFFICER SO THAT HE CAN PRODUCE ALL THE RELEVANT MAT ERIALS BEFORE HIM TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE CRED ITORS. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND REQUESTED FOR CONFIRM ING THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THOUGH WE DO NOT APPRECIATE THE LETHARGIC ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE I N PURSUING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REVENUE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT H IS CASE BEFORE THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO P RODUCE ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIALS BEFORE THE REVENUE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM. WE ALSO CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO- OPERATE WITH THE REVENUE IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS, FAIL ING WHICH THE REVENUE SHALL PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS PER LAW & MERITS. 4 ITA NO.946/MDS/2016 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 1 ST JULY, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 1 ST JULY, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF .