PARAG ASHOKBHAI DHAMELIYA,THANE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, THANE

Per Bench :

These captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee, challenging the consolidated ex-parte order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
Pune – 11 (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment
Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. 2. The assessee has challenged the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer ('ld.
A.O.' for short) u/s. 69 of the Act along with other grounds of appeal challenging the ITA No. 6155. 6154 & 6153/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15 to 2016-17)
Parag Ashokbhai Dhameliya assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w. 153C of the Act and other additions made by the ld. AO.
3. As the facts are identical, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No.
6155/Mum/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 as the lead case for the sake of convenience.
4. Briefly stated the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income for the year under consideration dated 31.07.2014, declaring total income at Rs. 2,65,990. Pursuant to the search and seizure action carried out in the case of the Antariksh Group dated 14.02.2019 and 12.04.2019 u/s. 132 of the Act, the ld. AO observed that the assessee was one of the partners of M/s. Antariksh Builder and Developers. The ld. AO issued notice u/s. 153C of the Act dated 15.11.2019, which was duly issued and served upon the assessee. Notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were also issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee filed his return of income dated 04.01.2022, in response to notice u/s. 153C of the Act, declaring the same income as that of the returned income. The ld.
AO then passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w. 153C of the Act dated 30.04.2021, determining total income at Rs. 2,99,490/-, after making an addition on unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act, amounting to Rs. 33,500 towards the payment made by the assessee for purchase of land at Bikaner for Rs. 67,000/-, which the assessee had failed to explain the source of the said investment by way of documentary evidence during the assessment proceeding.
5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated 27.12.2013 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by way of consolidated

ITA No. 6155. 6154 & 6153/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15 to 2016-17)
Parag Ashokbhai Dhameliya order for A.Y. 2014-15 to 2016-17 on the ground that the assessee has being non- compliant throughout the appellate proceeding.
6. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A).
7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the ld. AO for the impugned assessment years has made various additions under sections 69, 69A and 56(2) of the Act towards the various transactions entered into by the assessee.
8. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that the alleged properties were purchased in the name of the partnership firm and due to various reasons such as the pandemic period during the Covid, the assessee was unable to furnish all the necessary documents to substantiate his claim. The ld. AR further stated that the assessee has filed additional evidence such as the agreement for sale, the seized material, ledger confirmation from M/s. Maitri and Maitri Builders and Developers and the bank statement reflecting payment made by the assessee before us, which were not filed before the lower authority. The ld. AR prayed that the same may be admitted and considered for adjudication of the issues.
9. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative (‘ld. DR’ for short) for the revenue vehemently objected to the same on the ground that inspite of several opportunities, the assessee made no compliance before the ld. CIT(A) neither has the assessee filed the relevant documentary evidences before the ld. AO during the assessment proceedings.
10. In the above factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present his case before the ld. AO by ITA No. 6155. 6154 & 6153/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15 to 2016-17)
Parag Ashokbhai Dhameliya furnishing the documentary evidence proposed to be filed by the assessee in order to substantiate his claim. We therefore remand all these issues back to the file of the ld.
AO by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation. The ld. AO is directed to consider the submission of the assessee and to pass a de novo assessment order.
11. We have not expressed our view on the merits of the case and the same is to be adjudicated by the ld. AO upon considering the submission of the assessee and in accordance with law.
12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
13. The findings applied in ITA No. 6155/Mum/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 will apply mutatis mutandis to these appeals also.
14. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14.01.2025 (RENU JAUHRI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai; Dated: 14.01.2025
Karishma J. Pawar (Stenographer)

Copy of the Order forwarded to:

ITA No. 6155. 6154 & 6153/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15 to 2016-17)
Parag Ashokbhai Dhameliya

(Dy./Asstt.