,   "-  " 
     IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, MUMBAI

          BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN,AM AND LALIT KUMAR, JM


                   ./I.T.A. No5128/Mum/2014
                 (   / Assessment Year :2009-10)

 Mrs.Afroz Jahan Ashraf Qureshi,   / Income Tax Officer, 24(1)(1),
 15, Classic Villa CHS,                Mumbai-400012.
                                   Vs.
 Bandivali Hill Road,
 Jogeshwari-W,
 Mumbai-400102,
 Maharashtra
       ( /Appellant)               ..    (    / Respondent)


           . /   . /PAN/GIR No. :AACPQ0456C

             / Appellant by              None
               /Rspondent by             Shri Airiju Jaikran


             / Date of Hearing                : 17.8.2015
             /Date of Pronouncement: 17.8.2015

                                / O R D E R

PER B.R.BASKARAN, AM:

         The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated
17.4.2014 passed by the ld. CIT(A)-34, Mumbai and it relates to the
assessment year 2009-10.


2.      None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though the notice of
hearing was duly served on the assessee. Hence, we proceed to dispose of
the appeal ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.


3.      The appeal is barred by limitation by 52 days. The assessee has
filed an affidavit wherein it is stated that her mother expired in the First
                                    2                 I T A N o . 5 1 2 8 / Mu m / 2 0 1 4








week of May, 2014 and hence she was to away from the city to her native
place for about two months. Accordingly, it was submitted that the delay
has occurred due to unavoidable circumstances. We have heard the ld.DR
on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the submissions made in the
affidavit, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.

4.    The issue contested before us relates to unexplained deposits found
the bank account of the assessee. We notice that the assessee did not
appear before the ld. CIT(A) and hence, the First Appellate Authority has
passed ex-parte order, wherein he has confirmed the addition made by the
AO.   We notice that the ld.CIT(A) has passed the order in the month of
April, 2014 during which period the mother of assessee was ill and
ultimately died in the month of May, 2014. Hence, in the interest of
justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be given one more
opportunity to present her case before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set
aside the order of ld.   CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a
direction to adjudicate the appeal afresh after giving an adequate
opportunity of being heard to the assessee.






5.    In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for
statistical purposes.
             Pronounced accordingly on 17th August 2015.
                                        17th August, 2015    

        SD                                            SD
  (LALIT KUMAR)                                    ( B.R. BASKARAN)
 JUDICIAL MEMBER                                ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
 Mumbai: 17th Aug, 2015.

. ../ SRL , Sr. PS
                           3            I T A N o . 5 1 2 8 / Mu m / 2 0 1 4



        /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Appellant
2.     / The Respondent.
3.     () / The CIT(A)- concerned
4.      / CIT concerned
5.      ,     ,  /
     DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6.     / Guard file.

                                             / BY ORDER,

TRUE COPY
                                      (Asstt. Registrar)
                                   ,  /ITAT, Mumbai