SHEBANI DHIREN GALA,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

“1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and fact by not considering that the "reasons to believe" recorded by the Assessing Officer while reopening the assessment under Section 147 of the Act were different from the grounds on which the Assessing officer made the additions. Thus, if the reassessment is made on grounds not mentioned in the original reasons to believe, the entire reassessment is bad in law and hence void-ab-initio.

2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in law and facts by passing the impugned order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.03.2025, without considering, the written submissions and detailed explanation filed by the appellant on 11.03.2025 in response to the notice issued under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in fact and law by not considering that the appellant has filed the additional evidence filed by the appellant under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, along with a submissions made during the appellate proceedings before CIT(A) to substantiate the claim of the appellant. Further Acknowledgement copy of the aforesaid additional evidence and Submissions made has been received by the appellant online on 11.03.2025.

4. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and law by not considering the appellant's explanations, documentation, and evidence placed on record, thereby passing an order that is bad in law. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the additions made u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of clubbing of income of minor children NehanDhiren Gala and Kierra Dhiren Gala amounting to Rs.2,53,500/- & Rs.3,17,000/- respectively with mother's income i.e appellant Shebani Gala without considering the provisions of section 64(1A) of the Income Tax wherein the income of minor children is clubbed with the income of that parent whose income (excluding minor's income) is higher, which in case of the appellant was the appellant's spouse.

5. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and fact by not appreciating the fact that it is a settled principle of law that no addition can be sustained in reassessment proceedings unless it is based on the specific reasons recorded for reopening. Additions beyond the scope of such reasons are void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

7. In view of the above the appellant order be set aside, the addition under section 69A of Rs. 9,28,100/- be deleted.

The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that he was not given fair and reasonable opportunity by assessing officer. The assessing officer passed the ex-parte order without giving opportunity to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) fixed hearing of appeal only on two occasions and show cause notices. On second date of hearing the assessee filed submission on 11.03.2025. The ld. CIT(A) passed the order on 12.03.2025 without considering such submission. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that since ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal without considering the submission filed by assessee, therefore, matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A).

He undertakes on behalf of the assessee to be more vigilant in making timely compliance.

Though the order is passed on 12.03.2025 but such submission of assessee was not considered. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to ld. CIT(A) to consider the submission of assessee and passed the order afresh. The assessee is also directed to file his submission afresh as and when directed by ld. CIT(A).