VICKY DEEPAKKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned AO has wrongly passed the order under Section 144B of the Income tax Act, 1961 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

The assessee is an individualand filed his return of income for AY 2023- 24 on 29.07.2023 declaring total income of Rs.5,81,630/-.The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny to verify the source of investment and purchase of other goods or service in cash as compared to return of income. Notice u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”)were issued on 19.06.2024and 25.09.2024. The assessee filed details/documentary evidences in response to the notices. The Ld. Assessing Officer (in short “Ld. AO”)has not accepted the explanation given bythe assessee and held that the source of cash deposit of Rs.54,22,500/- in assessee’s two bank accounts maintained with HDFC Bank should be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and thus added the said amount. The Ld. AO also made addition of Rs.2,80,000/- towards the commission at 4% of Rs.70,000/- received from M/s. Arihant Trip Solution (LLP) by the assessee and treated the same as unexplained commission. The Ld. AO further made addition of Rs.1,57,318/- in respect of difference in commission shown in ITR and reflected in Form 26AS and treated the same as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (in short “Ld. AR”) for the assessee submitted that both the authorities have passed the ex-parte order despite the details filed before the Ld. AO as well as before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR

The Ld. Departmental Representative (in short “Ld. DR”) for the Revenue relied upon the assessment order and the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that both the authorities, despite filing the details related to cash deposits, have not taken into account the details, in fact the assessee has given the details of cash component along with his financial statement, customer-wise details of sale of tickets as well as bank statement of HDFC Bank which categorically reflects the cash deposit is the very cash from the customers received by the assessee. Thus, ground No.2 is allowed.

As regards ground No.3, the assessee has given the details of copy of account of M/s. Arihant Trip Solution (LLP) which is purchase account and loan account which categorically mentions that the transaction held by the assessee between the parties M/s. Arihant Trip Solution (LLP). In fact, the Ld. AO has not at all taken cognizance of these details while making an addition. Thus, the addition to the extent of Rs.2,80,000/- is deleted and ground No.3 is allowed.

As regards ground No.4, the difference amount of Rs.1,57,318/- being commission received as stated by the Ld. AO in para 3.8.3 the same was not verified and in fact the detail in Form No.26AS categorically is tallying with the 3

As regards Ground No.1, since the issues contested by the assessee on merit have already been decided, Ground No.1 is not adjudicated.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.