KISHORKUMAR LAKHAJI PRAJAPATI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(2)(2), MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ADDL/JCIT (A)-Faridabad [CIT(A)], dated 27.03.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year: 2017-18.

AY 2017-18 Kirshorkumar Lakhaji Prajapati II Addition of Rs.11.50,000/- u/s.69A as Unexplained Money 2. The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.11,50,000/- u/s. 69A of the Income tax Act, 1961, as unexplained money without appreciating that amount deposited in the bank account was on account sale transactions, which are properly recorded in the books of account and shown as cash in hand in the books of account wherein the appellant has maintained day to day stock transaction register, hence addition on presumption confirmed by the CIT(A) may be directed to be deleted.

3. The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) failed to appreciate that the cash sales deposited in the bank account cannot be assessed under section 69A and the provisions of section 115BBE cannot be applicable. III. Addition of Rs.5,30,315/- as Business Income 4. The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.5,30,315/- as business income, computed at 8% of the total credits of Rs.66,28,940/- reflected in the appellant's bank account, without appreciating that the appellant had already filed a return of income wherein all debit and credit entries, including cash sales, were duly therefore applying the presumptive rate of 8% on the total bank credits is not in accordance with law hence, the addition confirmed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) may be directed to be deleted.

5. Without prejudice to the above, when the income is estimated under section 144 of the Act, the specific addition under section 69A, read with section 115BBE of the Act, cannot be possible; hence same may be directed to be deleted. IV. Ex parte Order passed by the Assessing Officer 6. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming the ex parte order passed by the Assessing Officer treating the assessee as a non-filer, without appreciating that the delay in filing the Return of Income was due to technical issues arising from the non-linking of PAN with Aadhaar. The appellant filed the return of income online on 17/08/2019, immediately after the successful linking of PAN with Aadhaar. and the same was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer, and subsequently confirmed by the NFAC, treating the appellant as a non-filer and confirming the addition may be directed to be deleted. V. No Additional Evidence filed, hence there is no violation of Rule 46A 7. Without prejudice to above, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre NFAC erred in presuming that there was a violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, without appreciating that, the appellant during the appellate proceedings has submitted the documents which were submitted during the assessment e-proceeding in the form of Audited Books of Accounts for 3 years, Cash Book, Bank Book, and Stock register. As there is no violation of Rule 46A, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) ought to have decided the Issue on merit, considering the documents which were filed before the AO and before the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre NFAC.

AY 2017-18 Kirshorkumar Lakhaji Prajapati 8. Without prejudice to above the Judgement of Supreme Court in Kehav Mills Co Ltd v. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 365 (SC) is dealing with entirely different issue on the Issue of additional evidence which was not part of the record when the question was formed hence cannot be applied to the facts of the appellant hence the addition confirmed by the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) may be directed to be deleted.

AY 2017-18 Kirshorkumar Lakhaji Prajapati 3.1. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However, Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee had not furnished any cogent reasons backed by supporting evidence with regard to the source of deposits in his bank account and has also not filed the ITR for the year under consideration. He, accordingly, dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 27.03.2025. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has now filed an appeal before Tribunal.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- AMIT SHUKLA RENU JAUHRI (न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai दिन ुंक /Date 22.08.2025 दिव्य रमेश न ुंिग वकर/ स्टेनो आदेश की प्रनतनलनि अग्रेनित/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT AY 2017-18 Kirshorkumar Lakhaji Prajapati 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यानित प्रनत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,