AMIT KUMAR DALMIA,SILIGURI vs. ITO, SARD-1(1), SILIGURI

order : September 12, 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 28.03.2023 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. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in law as well as facts while passing the assessment order.

2. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in law as well as on facts while confirming the disallowance of abnormal loss of Rs. 5,08,440/- only relying upon the Assessment year: 2015-16 Amit Kumar Dalmia surveyor's report without giving cognizance to the books of accounts of the appellant where the loss claimed was actual loss suffered by the appellant.

3. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in law as well as facts while confirming the addition of the entire sale consideration of Rs. 12,37,000/- in total income of the appellant not allowing cost of acquisition and cost of improvement as deduction from the sales consideration.

4. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,13,132/- as difference between creditors balance notwithstanding the fact that appellant was not given an opportunity to give his explanation during the assessment proceedings.

5. That as the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is arbitrary, bad in law, unlawful and unjustified, the deduction claimed by the appellant should be allowed and the additions/disallowances should be deleted and your appellant be given such relief(s) as prayed for.

6. That the appellant craves your Ld. Permission to add, amend and modify the above on or before the date of hearing of the appeal.”

3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) to submit that the same is an ex parte order. The ld. Counsel has further invited our attention to the affidavit of the assessee, Shri Amit Kumar Dalmia, wherein, he has deposed that the old mother of the assessee was seriously ill and the assessee was occupied in taking care of her health and hence was not able to attend to his business or any other matter. He, under the circumstances, could not send the required documents and information to his consultant who in turn was supposed to furnish the same to the CIT(A). That non-compliance before the CIT(A) was not intentional, rather, due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, has submitted that the assessee may be given opportunity to present his case before the CIT(A).