NASIM KHAN,BHUBANESWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

Shri S.K.Agarwal, S.K.Agarwal, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. DR appeared for the revenue.

That, the Ld. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is wrong in not allowing the losses of ₹ 1,45,000 incurred under the head other sources and therefore the additions of 1,45,000 is liable to be deleted.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business or profession. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income declaring a total of Rs 3,16,660-/. The AO is should notice u/s 143(2) & u/s 142(1) of the Act. However, the assessee could not comply with the notice of hearing. From AIR information the AO noticed that the assessee had deposited cash amounting Of Rs.92,89,000-/ in his saving bank account with Axis Bank. On the basis of above the AO treated the deposit of Rs.92,89,000-/ as unexplained investment & added the same u/s 69 A of the Act. Besides this, The AO also made addition of Rs.43,747/- and Rs.1,45,000/- towards loss from other sources.

On appeal ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition as there has no compliance before him. Hence, the assesee appeal before us.

It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A), NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee exparte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. AR submit that before the ld CIT(A) the assesse had submitted new evidences under rule 46A of I.T rules which were not considered. It was his submission that even the assessment order has been passed u/s.144 as without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Ld AR requested that if one opportunity is granted to the assessee, the assessee would be in a position to cooperate in the set aside proceedings before the AO. Ld Sr DR opposed the prayer of the ld AR of the assessee. It was his submission that the assessee is not bothered to cooperate either in the assessment proceedings nor before the ld CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that the assesssee had furnished some additional evidences which have not been considered by the ld. CIT(A). The Ld CIT(A) was of the opinion that when the assesse is vigilant to prefer appeal but did not respond notices of hearing. It was also opined that when the assessee had not participated in the assessment proceedings, now it cannot claimed that he was prevented by sufficient cause form producing these evidences before the AO. Accordingly, he declined to accept the additional evidences & confirmed the addition made by the AO. Before us, P a g e 3 | 4 ld AR request one more opportunity to substantiate his claim before the Assessing officer. In view of above, in order to render substantiate justices, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld AO for fresh adjudication as per law and after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Liberty is given to the assessee to produce all such evidences, as deem necessary during the set aside proceedings before the AO.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.