ANIL KUMAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI

order : November 28, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19.01.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Appellate Authority erred in law and facts, in dismissing the appeal which has caused substantial denial of natural justice.

2. For that the Ld. Appellate Authority and the learned Assessing Authority erred in law and on facts in making an arbitrary addition u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961, for an amount of Rs. 22731055.00 which Assessment year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Jain relates to deposits so made during the material period with the business bank accounts of the appellant.

3. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in observing that the notices alleged to have been issued by the Assessing Authority not only over mail but also through speed post which is very much contrary to the facts and entire observation is based on arbitrary assumption.

4. For that the Ld. Appellate Authority erred in law in observing that the appellant was not diligent in representing the case in proper manner and entire observation is based on arbitrary assumption.

5. For that the Ld. Assessing Authority as well as the Ld. Appellate Authority should have appreciated that while the entire deposits arose out of sale proceeds of drugs and medicines which are being dealt in by the appellant and while the same is duly recorded in books and return of income was prepared accordingly, the same cannot suffer tax again in desired manner.

6. For that your petitioner craves leave to add, alter, modify, or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal or before.”

3. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has brought our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that the same is an ex parte order. Even the impugned assessment order dated 12.12.2019 is also an ex parte order passed u/s 144 of the Act. The ld. counsel in this respect has submitted that this is the first year of the operation of the partnership firm. That the appellant had given the entire details to Shri Manoranjan Saha, Advocate, to look after the Income Tax matters. However, Shri Manoranjan Saha left the profession and did not pursue the case of the appellant before the lower authorities. Further, that the accountant who was looking after the accounts of Shri Anil Kumar Jain, one of the partners in his proprietorship concern, was not given employment in the partnership firm and left the job. Therefore, the required details could not be furnished before the lower authorities resulting into the aforesaid ex parte orders.