ANKUR KIRITKUMAR MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

0 The CIT(A) on the law and facts ought to have held that the order-framed by the assessing officer under section 147 on 3.1st March, 2024 is bad in law and contrary to the facts. The order be quashed.

1 Asst. Year –2019-20 - 2–

2 The CIT(A) ought to have held that the AO has erred in invoking provisions of section 148 and framing the order under section 147. The appellant submits that there was no escapement of income. The notice under section 148 and order under section 147 be quashed.

0 The assessing officer and the CIT(A) erred in framing orders without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and relying upon the statements of various persons without providing any opportunity of cross examination of the said persons. The orders have been framed by the CIT(A) and assessing officer in violation of principles of natural justice and without affording any reasonable opportunity of being heard. The orders be quashed.

1 The assessing office ought to have complied with mandatory requirement of law and further as contended before the assessing officer by the appellant vide its submissions under various letters placed on his records during the assessment proceedings.

2 The CIT(A) on the facts and law erred in upholding denial of deduction by the AO merely on basis of verification report from DDIT (Investigation) U 2(2), Ahmedabad certain incriminating documents, bank account etc. rom premises of the persons referred to in para 2.0/2.1 etc. referred to in page no. 2 to 23 of the assessment order without -providing copies of all the documents etc. and without providing an opportunity to cross examine them. The order being in violation of principles of natural justice be quashed.

3 The CIT(A) ought to have held that the AO failed to consider submissions placed on his records as required by the law. The noting made by the AO on page no. 39 of the order that submissions have been duly considered are incorrect. The AO ought to have accepted affidavit filed by the appellant. The observations made in para 5 and 6 page 39-42 of the order are unilateral and contrary to the facts. The disallowance based on unilateral and incorrect conclusion be quashed.

0 The CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction of Rs. 34 Lacs being contribution made by the appellant to the recognized political party. The deduction under section 80GGC claimed by the appellant was in accordance with the provisions of law and ought to have been allowed by the assessing officer. The denial of deduction being bad in law and contrary to the facts be quashed.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income declaring total income of ₹1,37,66,880/- for the Ankur Kiritkumar Mehta vs. ITO Asst. Year –2019-20 - 3–

Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), several notices under section 250 of the Ankur Kiritkumar Mehta vs. ITO Asst. Year –2019-20 - 4–

Nevertheless, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to examine the grounds of appeal on the basis of the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee had not furnished any plausible explanation or supporting evidence to rebut the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer. With respect to the grounds challenging the reassessment proceedings under sections 147 and 148, the Ld. CIT(A) found no merit in the contentions raised by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the Assessing Officer had made the disallowance after considering the information received from the Investigation Wing and the surrounding circumstances relating to the alleged bogus donation scheme. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of ₹34,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee and carefully perused the material available on record. It is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal primarily on account of the non-responsive Asst. Year –2019-20 - 5–

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present his case before the appellate authority. Since the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) has been dismissed substantially on account of non-prosecution and without a detailed examination of the evidences which the assessee now claims to possess, the ends of justice would be met if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, considering the conduct of the assessee in not properly responding to the notices issued during the appellate proceedings, we deem it appropriate to impose a cost of ₹ 5,000/-, which the assessee shall deposit with the Prime Minister’s Relief Asst. Year –2019-20 - 6–

The Ld. CIT(A) shall thereafter adjudicate the issues involved in the appeal afresh in accordance with law after considering the submissions and evidences that may be filed by the assessee.

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 12/03/2026 (NARENDRA P. SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 12/03/2026