VIKRAM JAIN,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

This Stay Application is filed by Shri Vikram Jain (the assessee/appellant/applicant) for the assessment year 2017-18 stating that outstanding demand of Rs.92,36,770 out of which assessee has already paid Rs.23,92,960 and the balance amount may be directed to be kept in abeyance for recovery.

As the Bench asked the ld. DR whether because of this reason, the appeal of the assessee may be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for granting fresh opportunity of hearing and further submission of the assessee, the ld. DR submitted that he does not have any objection as on the date of hearing, it is stated that the father of the CA of the assessee was admitted to the hospital.

Therefore, as per the consent of both the parties, the appeal was also taken up for hearing.

The brief facts of the case show that assessee is an individual, carrying on jewelry business, who filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.24,12,400. The return was filed for scrutiny. After the hearing, the ld. AO noted that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.48,50,000 on 13.11.2016 in his HDFC Bank A/c and Rs.80,27,000 on 14.11.2016 in his Kotak Mahindra Bank A/c. The assessee submitted the details of cash sales and also the bills. The ld. AO noted that in many such bills there are no address or phone number and many bills are not signed. Such defects were noted by the AO on page 5 of the assessment order and subsequently show cause notice was issued. The assessee submitted that increase in cash sales is due to an exhibition at Bengaluru which has generated cash sales. The ld. AO disbelieved the same and made an addition of Rs.122,85,188 as unexplained cash credit u/s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by assessment order dated 30.12.2019.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein written submissions on 27.2.2023 and 14.11.2023 were submitted. These are recorded at page 7 to 30 of the order of the ld. CIT(A). Similar submissions were further made on 9.5.2024, 6.11.2024 & 5.6.2025. The assessee also requested a personal hearing through video- conferencing which was granted on 21.7.2025 at 12.00 PM. As on that date, the father of the ld. AR, CA, Sri Rohit Goutham Chand was admitted to the hospital and therefore he could not appear. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO vide order dated 23.7.2025.

Assessee is in appeal against that appellate order. We have heard the rival contentions. We find that In the appellate order though the written submissions filed are extracted extensively in 23 pages, however, while deciding ground No.2 to 4 in para 5.2, those were not at all discussed. Further as the assessee did not get an effective opportunity of personal hearing, because of unfortunate situation, we find that assessee deserves an opportunity of personal hearing also.

In view of the above facts, we restore the whole appeal back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh by considering the written submissions of the assessee already made, granting or which may also be made and granting an opportunity of personal hearing. The assessee is directed to make submissions as well as avail the opportunity of personal hearing and contend the arguments before him.

In the result all the grounds of appeal are allowed as indicated above. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In view of our decision in the appeal itself, the stay petition becomes infructuous and hence dismissed.