On the basis of personal indisposition principle of opportunity of being heard cannot be denied

Court :
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Brief :
In support of ground No. 3 the Ld. AR submitted that the counsel of the assessee had been appearing before the Ld. CIT(A) to cooperate with the first appellate authority and only on 15.3.2010 the counsel of the assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) since the assessee could not inform her counsel about the date of hearing fixed on 15.3.2010 for filing reply to the remand report furnished by the AO. The Ld. AR pointed out that due to her personal indisposition the assessee could not inform her counsel about the date fixed. Ld. AR submitted that before the authorities below the assessee had filed submissions in detail alongwith a copy of her cash account and her bank account. A perusal of these accounts show that some of the deposits are out of withdrawals made earlier and are therefore explained. He pointed out that the total amount of cash withdrawn and re-deposit is ` 8,37,300/-. Thus Ld. CIT(A) while passing order even in the absence of reply of the assessee should have allowed the relief of ` 8,37,300/- apart from allowing relief of ` 2,40,000/- received form her husband Shri B.P. Singh who is in defence service. The Ld. AR referred to page nos. 19 to 48 of the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. These are copies of written submissions dated 23.10.2009, 11.11.2009 & 4.12.2009 filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and bank statement of the assessee. Ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below against the additions sustained at ` 12,44,635/- made on behalf of unspent cash deposits in the saving bank account of the assessee and disallowance of the expenses incurred for running the trading business of the clothes. The Ld AR submitted that looking into the turnover of the assessee at ` 8,74,612/- the expenditure claimed at ` 43,892/- was very reasonable.

Citation :
Harvinder Kaur, 8678, Arkashan Road Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. AJBPK2677F (Appellant) Vs. ITO Ward-39(4) New Delhi. (Respondent)