SUNIL NAGINDAS SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the Order, dated 12/09/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 05/02/2025 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment year 2019-2020. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds:

“The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against law, equity & justice.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed by Ld. A.O. as notices & orders U/S 148A(b)/ 148A(d) /148 issued by the Ld. JAO is void & illegal and without juri iction.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. as Reopening of assessment is bad and illegal and in contravention to section 149 of the Act.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. as reopening of assessment after 3 years was done with the approval of PCIT instead of PCCIT.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. in spite of no opportunity was proved to appellant for cross examination of persons on whose statement he has relied upon.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the rejection of deduction claimed U/S 80GGC of the Act of Rs.7,50,000/-

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made U/S 69A of the Act by the Ld. A.O. of Rs.20,50,000/-.

The appellant Craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.” Ground No.7

When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee pressed into service Ground No.7 raised by the Assessee. It was submitted that the Learned CIT(A) has dismissed appeal filed by the Assessee without granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The first notice of hearing was issued on 21/08/2025 and thereafter, the second notice of hearing was issued on 28/08/2025 fixing hearing on 03/09/2025. The Assessee moved an application seeking adjournment on 03/09/2025 seeking one months time. The Learned CIT(A) adjourned the hearing to 04/09/2013 and thereafter, passed the impugned order on 13/09/2025. The entire appellate proceedings were completed over a period of 23 days without granting reasonable time to the Assessee to prosecute the appeal. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that for the aforesaid reasons the Assessee was not able to file additional evidence before the Learned CIT(A) and has moved an application for admission of additional evidence before this Tribunal.

Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) contending that three notice of hearing were issued to the Assessee before disposing off the appeal. It was further submitted that the additional evidence not being filed by the Assessee required verification.

On perusal of record we find that the averments made on behalf of by the Assessee are factually correct. The three notices of hearing were issued by the Learned CIT(A) over a period of one month. First notice of hearing was issued on 21/08/2025 and the impugned order was passed on 13/09/2025. While the Learned CIT(A) disposed off the appeal in expeditiously, the Assessee’s request for seeking adjournment for a month was rejected. The case set up by the Assessee is that due to the aforesaid the Assessee was not able to procure/file additional evidence and prosecute appeal. Thus, reasonable opportunity of being heard was not granted to the Assessee. The Learned Departmental Representative had pointed out that the additional evidence was not before the Assessing Officer and therefore, the same required verification. We are of the view that the interest of the justice would be met in case the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) confirming addition of INR.20,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act is set-aside and the issue is restore back to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication with the directions to consider the additional evidence filed by the Assessee after due verification. Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No.7 raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes without returning any findings on merits. Ground No.6

As regards, Ground No.6 raised by the Assessee is concerned, we find that the Assessing Officer has returned following findings:

The above findings were confirmed by the Learned CIT(A). There is nothing on record to persuade us to take a different view of the matter. No additional evidence has been filed by the Assessee on this issue in the appellate proceedings to establish the genuineness of the transactions. Given the aforesaid, remanding the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) would amount to empty formality. Therefore, Ground No.6 raised by the Assessee is dismissed. Ground No.1 to 5

As regards, Ground No.1 to 5 raised by the Assessee are concerned, no submissions were advance on these grounds during the course of hearing by either side in response to specific query raised by the Bench in this regard. Therefore, Ground No. Ground No.1 to 5 are dismissed as not pressed.

In result, in terms of above, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is partly allowed.

""यथ"/ The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु"/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण/ DR, ITAT, 6. गाड"फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.