LIVERPOOL FASHIONS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

1 The ld. CIT(A), has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not appreciating that there was no valid communication of the notices of hearing so that the same could not be responded by the appellant. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there was a sufficient cause for failure to comply with the notices claimed to be issued by NFAC.

1 The ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the addition aggregating to Rs.2,19,50,000/- consisting of cash deposits of Rs. 39,40,000/- and credits of Rs. 1,80,10,000/- in bank account with Central Bank of India as unexplained deposit u/s 69A rws 115BBE.

2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the Id. CIT(A), ought not to have upheld the addition aggregating to Rs.2,19,50,000/- consisting cash deposits Rs.39,40,000/- and credits of Rs. 1,80,10,000/- in bank of account with Central Bank of India as unexplained deposit u/s 69A rws 115BBE.”

The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 422 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee filed a notarized affidavit explaining that change in management, the assessee could not represent both before the AO as well as the CIT(A), which has resulted in a delay of 422 days in filing the above appeal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before us a paper book running to 73 pages, wherein confirmation from the creditors, bank statements, ITRs filed by the I.T.A No. 644/Ahd/2025 - A.Y. 2017-18 4. Ld. CIT.DR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the asessee neither co-operated before the AO nor filed evidences before the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has not filed the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. Whereas, in its bank account with Central Bank of India, the assessee made cash deposit of Rs.39,40,000/-and total credits in the account of Rs.2,19,50,000/-. Since, the assessee failed to explain the cash deposit and credit entries appearing in the bank account, the AO made total addition of Rs.2,19,50,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and assessed to tax u/s.115BBE of the Act @ 60%.

Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). However, in spite of four opportunities, the assessee failed to response to the notices which are resulted in passing ex parte appellate order. However, the assessee filed relevant documents before us. Therefore, to meet the interest of justice, we need it fit to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the assessee to the Income Tax Department for its non-cooperation before the lower authorities, within two weeks of receipt of copy of this order. On production of the receipt of the cost payment, the Ld. Juri ictional AO (‘JAO’) is directed to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and I.T.A No. 644/Ahd/2025 - A.Y. 2017-18 Order pronounced in the open court on 11-03-2026 (DR. BRR KUMAR) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 11/03/2026आदेश कȧ Ĥितिलǒप अĒेǒषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee

Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,