ARIHANT AIRCON SERVICE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41 (1)(1), MUMBAI

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 21.03.2025, impugned herein, passed by the ADDL/JCIT (A)-1 (in short Ld. ADDL/Joint Commissioner) u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2016- 17.

At the very outset it is observed that the impugned order is an ex-parte and therefore this Court is inclined to reject the adjournment application filed by the Assessee. Thus, the same is rejected and the case is proceeded with.

This Court observe that the AO vide assessment order dated 13.12.2018 has made the addition of Rs. 21,59,008/- u/s. 68 of the Act, on account of undisclosed income.

The Assessee being aggrieved though challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner by filing first appeal, however as it appears from para no. 3.1 of the impugned order that despite giving opportunity to the Assessee on 07.02.2021 and thereafter on dated 11.10.2024, 03.03.2025 and 12.03.2025, the Assessee except seeking adjournment on 07.02.2021, eventually made no compliance and therefore in the constrained circumstances the Ld. Commissioner by ‘holding that no details whatsoever were filed by the appellant, during the course of appellate proceedings in support of its contention. In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the appellant to prove that the facts and the findings of the AO are incorrect. No documentary evidence has been filed during the appellate proceedings to disapprove the finding of the AO and therefore there is AO.’ Ultimately no infirmity observed in the order of the rejected/dismissed the appeal of the Assessee.

The Assessee being aggrieved has preferred this appeal. The Assessee has claimed that there was some miscommunication between the Assessee and the previous counsel, who could not file the relevant documents and therefore lenient view may be taken by giving one more last and final opportunity.

On the contrary, the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee by submitting that impugned order neither suffers from any perversity or impropriety nor illegality and therefore the appeal of the Assessee is liable to be dismissed.

This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and observe that admittedly the issue involved in the instant case related to the cash deposits of Rs. 21,59,008/- in the bank account maintained by the Assessee with Saraswat Co-operative bank and therefore issue cropped up with regard to the genuineness of the said amount deposited, which remained to be adjudicated in its right prospective and proper manner, specifically in the absence of reply and documents, which the Assessee has failed to file before the Ld. Commissioner and therefore for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, but subject to deposit of Rs. 5100/- in the Revenue Department under ‘other head’ within 15 days from the date of this order.

The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices to be issued by the Ld. Commissioner and file the relevant reply/documents which would be essentially required by the Ld. Commissioner for proper and just decision of the case. It is clarified that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.