DEEPAK KAUSHAL ,FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC),
Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short], in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10151037 dated
30.04.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short) for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee appeared and requested for the adjournment on the ground that the paper book and additional evidences are required to be filed in the instant case as both the lower authorities have passed the order ex-parte. The request of the assessee is considered. After hearing both the parties and perusal of the order of the AO as well as of the appellate order, we find that the Assessing Officer has passed the order u /s 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.5,44,23,750/- on account of unexplained investment
Deepak Kaushal vs. ITO which stood confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as no details /documentary evidences were filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). Under these circumstances, we are of the view that in the present case, the assessee needs one more opportunity as no details could be filed before any of the lower authority and now assessee is requesting to filed additional evidences before us in support of the claim of the source of investment. In view of these facts, we set aside both the orders of the lower authorities and remand to the file of the AO to pass the order denovo afresh. The assessee is directed to file all the necessary evidences in support of claim of source of investment made. With these directions, grounds of appeal
No.1 to 3 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.08.2025. (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (MANISH AGARWAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 22.08.2025

PK/Sr. Ps