NEMCHAND KHETSHI DEDHIA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL), MUMBAI

O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

of the revenue reads as under: - “1. The Ld. CIT(A) passed an order u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 28.06.2022 having DIN & Order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1043629976(1) dismissing the grounds of appeal and thereby dismissing the Appeal without considering the submissions made by the appellant.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the grounds of appeal and thereby dismissing the appeal against the order passed by the Ld. AO (i.e. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the Ld. AO) u/s 143(3) dated 22.12.2018, wherein he has (i) made an addition of Rs.34,00,000/- u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of the cash 2 A.Y. 2016-17 Nemchand Khetshi Dedhia deposits (made into bank account out of earlier cash withdrawals and cash on hand) being treated by him as “unexplained cash credits” to the said bank account, and (ii) raising demand u/s 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.7,26,312/- including additional interest charged u/s 234B.”

3. None appeared on behalf of the assesse despite notice. However, we note that the main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in passing the impugned order without taking into consideration, the assessee’s plea before him to allow personal hearing since certain factual aspects needs to be pointed out for effective adjudication of the grounds appeal regarding addition resorted to by the AO. We note that the assessee had filed the reply to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that his CA Mr. Ashok Manilal Solanki would plead and represent the case and has filed paper book consisting of seventy five (75) pages and further pleaded that the paper book contains relevant material and which has not been considered by the AO while making the addition/drawing adverse inference against the assessee. We note that in his reply to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee pleaded for personal hearing which was not heeded upon by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. We are of the considered opinion that when the assessee has requested for person hearing the NFAC ought to have granted the request of assessee. Failure to do so resulted in the violation of natural justice. And therefore, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to the 3 A.Y. 2016-17 Nemchand Khetshi Dedhia CIT(A)/NFAC and direct the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC disposed of the appeal afresh after giving personal hearing to the AR of the assessee