JAGDISH CHALAYA SUVARNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 42(2)(3), MUMBAI

The grounds of appeal are as under:- i. The Appellant submits that for the sake of brevity, the para no.1.3 of the impugned Order, is reproduced below:- 66 Notice of hearing was issued to the appellant 05.02.2021, 01.11.2023 and 04.12.2023 to file written submissions by 22.02.2021, 16.11.2023 and 11.12.2023. The appellant furnished documents along with the written submissions on 12.03.2021 & 07.07.2023. The appeal is disposed of after considering the submissions of the appellant, facts on record and position of law on the issue, as under." ii. The Appellant submits that from a bare verbatim reading of the para no.1.3 of the Order, it is pertinent to be noted, that deliberately, with a predetermined mind, the Hon'ble Commissioner(Appeals) "DID NOT MENTION WRITTEN SUBMISSION dt. 13th November 2023" in the para no.1.3 of the impugned Order, causing prejudice and denial of Principle of natural justice.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who disclosed income of Rs 16,96,680/-in the return filed for the relevant year. His case was later selected for scrutiny by the ld.AO as the department had knowledge in possession that during demonetization period the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs 39,90,000/- in a bank account with Bharat Cooperative Bank. Since there was no compliance before the AO in response to departmental notices by the assessee, he added the sum to his income treating the same as unexplained in terms of section 69A of the Act. Page 3 Jagdish Chalaya Suvarna

In the subsequent appeal before the ld.CIT(A), it was contented that the above sum was in fact earlier withdrawal from various bank accounts belonging to himself as also other family members. However, the ld.CIT(A) observed that no documentary evidences were submitted by the assessee to prove his claim. He, therefore, rejected the contention as there was substantial time lag between the said withdrawal from other banks and subsequent deposit in the above named bank account as claimed. Based on the theory of human probabilities, he disbelieved the contentions of the assessee and upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Before us, the ld.DR has relied on the orders of authorities below while the ld.AR has claimed that the ld.CIT(A) has not taken into all submissions made during appeal proceedings. It is submitted that the assessee had made a detailed submission dated 13.11.2023 through the e- portal. However, the appellate order is completely silent on it. A copy thereof, is placed before us for perusal. We find that the in this submission the assessee had elaborately narrated all the relevant facts and figures in support of the contention made in explaining the said deposits. However, the same does not find reflected in the appellate order probably due to mis- communication of the online submission. Page 4 Jagdish Chalaya Suvarna

We are of the considered view that the ld.CIT(A) should take into consideration the above submission to examine the merits of the contentions therein vis-a-vis the said deposits and sources thereof. Section 250 of the Act, inter alia provides that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) shall state the point of determination, decision and the reasons for such decision while disposing of the appeal in writing. However, in the case under consideration, the ld.CIT(A) has failed to adhere to these provisions of the Act mainly on account of lack of proper communication. In such a situation, the above matter needs to be remanded back to the ld.CIT(A) to for examining all the relevant facts of the case including the submissions made by the assessee so as to arrive at a judicious decision. Thus, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to allow the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a thorough and compliant adjudication process. The ld.DR has not objected to this proposed action. The ld. CIT(A) shall give proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with principles of natural justice in the set aside remand proceedings for due adjudication of the appeal of the Revenue filed before him. Needless to state, the assessee would comply with the notices and cooperate in proper and just adjudication of the appeal filed by him.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/03/2025. NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (न्यायिक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) Place: मुंबई/Mumbai दिनांक / Date 26.03.2025 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno PRABHASH SHANKAR (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/