RAJENDRA SHANKARRAO JADHAO,AMRAVATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AMRAVATI CIRCLE , AMRAVATI

On hearing both the sides, we find that the impugned order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, has been passed relying on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee 118 ITR 461. Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee was not duly served of the notice and our attention was drawn to the fact that notices were not issued on the address provided in Form–35. We find that the assessee had provided e–mail address in Form–35 and mentions that notices were not served by e–mail. NFAC in its impugned order mentions of the notices being issued, however, the mode of service is not reflected. We find that the issue involved is an addition made on account of alleged unexplained cash credit, disallowance on account of delayed payment of ESIC and on account of unexplained interest of loan.

Ld. Counsel has drawn our attention to the fact that the assessee maintains audited books of accounts and the purchase of the vehicle, was by way of loan and assessee had failed to compile relevant information and explain the cash credit for the purpose of vehicle. At the same time, it is pointed out that ESIC deposits were made as per the time limit prescribed under the relevant statute. It was also submitted that the addition on account of interest, disallowance is well explained by correcting the facts incorrectly recorded by A.O.

We are of the considered view that though the assessment order passed under Section 143(3), however, assessee had failed to file relevant replies, thus, it is an appropriate case where the issues need to be restored to the files of Ld. A.O.

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the issues are restored to the files of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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