BANKIM HARRAI VASHI,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), SURAT

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is individual, filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17, declaring total income of Rs.57,20,540/- and exempt income of Rs.65,88,435/-. The return was taken for scrutiny assessment and found that the gift received from the mother was not explained properly. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (in short, the ‘AO’) added cash credit of Rs.30,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, in appeal Form 35, the assessee requested notices were not send to e-mail address, however, the Ld. CIT(A) issued three notices on 24.01.2021, 15.05.2025 and 04.07.2025 and thereby dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us, raising following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2/Chennai CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.30,00,000/- u/s 68 Income-tax Act as Cash Credit being Gift received from his mother. 2. The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-2/Chennai CIT(A), NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in dismissing the Appeal ex-parte. 3. PRAYER: 3.1 The addition made by Ld Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld Addl/JCIT(A)-Chennai may be kindly deleted/restored back to CIT(A)-NFAC-Chennai for hearing. 3.2 Personal hearing may be granted. 3.3 Any other relief that your hours may deem fit may be granted.

At the outset of hearing, the assessee also filed application under Rule 29for admitting additional evidence, i.e., SBI bank statement of Shantaben Harrai Vasi for the ended on 01.05.2015 to 30.11.2015 and Central Bank of India bank passbook of Shantaben Harrai Vashi for the ended on 02.04.2015 to 15.10.2015. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further placed on bank account of assessee’s mother with SBI and Central Bank of India to prove the source of gift of the assessee. Thus, Ld. Counsel pleaded that the assessee may be given opportunity of hearing before the JAO with all additional evidence and also to prove the source of gift given by assessee’s mother.

On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submitted that the matter may be set aside to the JAO to verify the additional evidence.

We have heard and perused the materials available on record. Referring to the above statement of rival submission of parties and in the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to set aside the order passed by the lower authorities with a direction to the JAO to grant one more opportunity of hearing to explain the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee should make use of this final opportunity of hearing and produced all relevant evidences before the JAO to pass order on merits of the case.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.