SHRI MAHADEV PARABAT PATEL,THANE vs. ACIT, CIR-1, KALYAN, THANE

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058825086(1), dated 18.12.2023, passed against the assessment order by Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 28.09.2022, for Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds taken by the Assessee are reproduced as under:

2
Shri. Mahadev Parbat Patel, AY 2020-21

(i)
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in law, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs,1,98,66,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A without appreciating the provisions contained therein and evidences submitted in the course assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer.

(ii)
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs,1,98,66,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A in as much as the investment of the said property was recorded by the appellant and relevant details were furnished before
Assessing Officer in the course assessment proceedings, which has been completely ignored.

(iii)
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in law, the Ld. C.L.T.(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs,1,98,66,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A in as much as additional evidence furnished before Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings is not considered while passing the order. Learned CIT (A) did not furnish copy of the remand report, if any, received from the Assessing Officer to the appellant for obtaining rejoinder from him. Passing of the appellate order, in absence of rejoinder from the appellant is invalid and against the natural justice.

(iv)
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in law, the Ld. C.1.T.(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs,1,98,66,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A in as much as the non-receipt of the part consideration of Rs.1,92,16,000/-as on the date of execution of agreement for said property, was confirmed by the seller of the property and evidence thereof was furnished before the learned CIT(A), which is completely ignored.

Based on the above, your appellant prays that the addition made/confirmed in the assessment/appellate proceedings be deleted in full.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in law, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs,17,50,000/- made by the Ld. AO out of the total deduction of Rs.55,85,039/- claimed u/s 57, without appreciating the alternative plea of allowing deduction of Rs.17,50,000/- under the head income from Profits and Gains of Business or Profession, by disregarding the relevant evidence furnished in the course appellate proceedings before the Ld. C.I.T. (A). Your appellant, therefore, prays that the addition made/confirmed be deleted in full.

3
Shri. Mahadev Parbat Patel, AY 2020-21

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B by the Ld. AO on the additions made to the income, as such an additions were not envisaged by the appellant while filing return of income. Your appellant, therefore, prays that the interest levied as above on account of addition made/confirmed be deleted in full.”