YIELD CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE – 6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s 147, without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and thus in violation of the principles of natural justice.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the additions made by Ld. Assessing

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the appellant has not been found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewelry or any other valuable article or thing which is not recorded in the books of account as maintained.

Without prejudice, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the additions of Rs 7,28,05,400/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in the appellant's bank accounts without giving credit for cash withdrawals as admitted by Ld. Assessing Officer himself.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs 7,28,05,400/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by the Ld. Assessing Officer when no unaccounted assets or cash were found at the premises of the appellant company during the course of survey action u/s 133A of the Act.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs 7,28,05,400/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as made by the Ld. Assessing Officer merely on the basis of whatsapp / email communications without bringing on record any corroborative material and

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs 7,28,05,400/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the addition has been made by the Ld. Assessing Officer placing reliance on the statements of Shri Prakash Manohar Dhavale, Director of the appellant company and Shri Gopal Jagdish Damle, Assistant Accountant in M/s A. N. Enterprises Infrastructure Services P Limited recorded during the course of survey action conducted u/s 133A of the Act, despite the fact that not only both the statements lacks evidentiary value but also do not provide any incriminating or adverse evidence.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer without any application of mind and placing unduly heavy reliance solely on two statements recorded u/s 133A of the Act and treating invoices found and seized during the search as incriminating material, without conducting any independent inquiry or bring on record any corroborative material.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs 1,01,71,99,258/- w/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained cash credits in the books of accounts of the appellant company.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the levy of interest of Rs 63,15,21,375/- u/s 234A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the levy of interest of Rs 68,20,43,085/- u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.”

At the very outset, we noticed that the addition in this case was made by the A.O. u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act on 28.12.2024. Although, aggrieved by the aforementioned assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but except filing in FORM 35, the assessee did not file the

Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that the assessee could not effectively represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A), and therefore, in the interest of justice, the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after providing adequate and sufficient opportunity of hearing, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed upon the assessee, which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. A copy of the receipt shall be placed on record before the Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any

Before parting, we wish to make it clear that our decision to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as reflecting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated independently by the Ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law.

Needless to mention, the Ld. CIT(A) shall provide an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of the proceedings.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.