, IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 698/AHD/2017 Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dilip Mafatlal Patel, Income Tax Officer, C/o Rakesh Mafatlal Patel, Vs. Ward-1, M232, 2780, Satyam Apt. Patan. Sola Road, Naranpura, Ahmedabad. PAN: AGPPP9925Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Pritesh Shah, A.R Revenue by : Ms Smiti Samant, Sr. D.R Date of Hearing : 21/08/2019 Date of Pro nouncement: 01/10/2019 ORDER PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: captioned appeal has been filed at instance of Assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhi Nagar dated 28/09/2016 ( in short Ld.CIT(A) ) arising in matter of assessment order passed under s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") dt. 06/10/2015 relevant to Assessment Year 2008-2009. assessee has raised following ground of appeal. ITA no.698/AHD/2017 Asstt. Year 2008-09 2 1. learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition made by AO of Rs.10,62,400/- as unexplained cash deposit under section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961, such addition is requested to be deleted. However, assessee vide letter dated 04/03/2019 has also filed following additional ground of appeal: learned CIT(A) failed to give adequate opportunity of being heard to submit additional evidences, such opportunity of being heard is requested to be granted First we take up additional ground of appeal raised by assessee. issue raised by assessee in additional ground of appeal is that ''Ld.CIT (A)'' erred in passing order confirming addition made by AO without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 2. We have heard rival contention of both parties and perused relevant materials available on record. ''Ld.AR, before us has filed paper book running from pages 1 to 118 and submitted that assessee has requested to ''Ld.CIT (A)'' vide letter dated 19/09/2016 to grant time for 20 days in order to file additional evidences. However, ''Ld. CIT (A)'' passed order vide dated 29/09/2016 without considering prayer of assessee. Ld.AR, in support of his contention drew our attention on page 27 of PB where application for seeking time was placed. 2.2 Ld.AR, further submitted that bank account in which cash was deposited was joint bank account of assessee along with his brother. In fact brother did not co-operate with assessee in furnishing requisite details to AO during assessment proceedings due to some personal dispute between them. Accordingly AO passed ex-parte order in absence of sufficient documentary evidence. ITA no.698/AHD/2017 Asstt. Year 2008-09 3 In view of above Ld. AR for assessee prayed before us to restore matter to AO for fresh adjudication and after considering supporting evidences. 3. On other hand Ld. DR raised no objection if matter is set aside to file of AO for fresh adjudication as per provision of law. 4. Considering submission of assessee and fact of case we note that order has been passed by ''Ld.CIT (A)'' without giving sufficient opportunity to assessee. In our considered view opportunity of being heard is sine qua non to decide issue on hand. Accordingly in interest of justice and fair play we deem it fit to restore matter to file of AO for fresh adjudication as per provision of law. We also make it clear that assessee should co-operate before AO during assessment proceeding. assessee is at his liberty to file requisite documents in support of his contention. Hence ground of appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In result appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Court on 01/10/2019 at Ahmedabad. -Sd- -Sd- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 01/10/2019 manish Dilip Mafatlal Patel v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 1, Patan