RAJIV RAMESHKUMAR SAWHNEY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(1)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the ex-parte order, without granting sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in passing the assessment order u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.27,15,000/- u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by treating the cash deposits in bank as alleged unexplained income of the appellant without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.1,30,25,226/-u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by considering the entire credit in the bank account as alleged unexplained income of the appellant, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.1,90,00,000/- by treating the entire sale consideration on sale of immovable property as alleged long term capital gain, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in considering the cost of acquisition of the said property as Nil on his own surmises and conjectures and not assigning the adequate indexed cost to compute the correct LTCG, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.14,08,840/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as alleged unexplained expenditure without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal." There is delay in filing the appeal. The assessee has requested for condonation of delay stating the facts supported by an affidavit. We have carefully considered the contents of the affidavit and are convinced that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on time. Delay is condoned.

After carefully perusing the orders of the authorities below, we find that both the lower authorities have framed their respective orders ex- parte. We find from the affidavit that the assessee was facing severe mental distress and financial challenges since the company where he is a director, M/s. Pik Pen Pvt. Ltd., is continuously suffering loss due to which the company has gone into liquidation process because of which the employees who were looking after the tax matter of the assessee company left the company without informing the assessee about the notices issued by the revenue authorities.

We find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine for non-compliance of the notices. In the interest of justice and fairplay, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the AO. The assessee is directed to furnish necessary details and the AO is directed to verify the same and decide the issue afresh after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 7th May, 2025 at Mumbai. (SAKTIJIT DEY) VICE-PRESIDENT Mumbai, Dated 07/05/2025 आदेश की प्रतिलिपि ग्रेषित/