SEEMA SUNIL BAGUL,NASHIK vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, NASHIK

Main grievance of the assessee is against the addition of Rs.59,47,615/- u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act.

We have heard both the sides and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s. Rutika Services and the nature of business is providing contract services and manpower services to various companies and firms. Assessee filed the return of income on 31.12.2023 declaring total income of Rs.94,89,380/-. Case processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, case selected for Complete Scrutiny under CASS for the reasons (a) Low net profit shown by certain specific business codes including other services and (b) high income reported in the return and no entry in schedule Assets and Liabilities of return of income. Statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were served upon the assessee to which assessee furnished the requisite details. On due consideration of the said details, ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment making addition of Rs.29,47,165/- u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act as the assessee has failed to furnish supporting evidences to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of sundry creditors. Ld. Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.30,00,000/- towards unexplained cash deposits. Income assessed at Rs.1,54,36,545/-.

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but then failed to make any submissions/compliance resulting into dismissal of assessee’s appeal for non-prosecution. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal contending that ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merits and has not adhered to the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act.

Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee demonstrated that due to the reasons beyond control of the assessee, there was no compliance before ld.CIT(A). It was also submitted that assessee’s Accountant who was entrusted with the job fell seriously ill at the relevant period and the said fact was brought on record in the final show cause notice dated 13.03.2025. Therefore, a prayer is made to afford one more opportunity to go before ld.CIT(A) and substantiate its case.

On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A) and submitted that despite sufficient opportunities granted, neither there was any participation by the assessee nor any submissions have been filed. Therefore, appeal of the assessee deserves dismissal.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before. The grievance in the instant appeal is against the couple of additions made by the Assessing Officer. We find in the course of assessment proceedings, assessee has made compliance to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer giving major details leading to the additions made by the Assessing Officer. However, before ld.CIT(A) assessee is claiming that at the relevant time owing to illness of Accountant and domestic difficulties faced by the assessee there was no compliance which resulted into dismissal of assesesee’s appeal for non-prosecution. It is also a fact that ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues on merit as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act.

Considering the entire factual matrix, the details provided by the assessee in support of its grounds of appeal and the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, we are of the considered view that assessee deserves one more opportunity. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the case, the issues raised in the instant appeal are restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Assessee is directed to update email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, appeal of the assesssee is allowed for statistical purposes.