PRADEEP JANARDHAN SAKHARE,SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(A), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging the aforesaid additions made by the Ld. AO. The assessee also raised a legal ground before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging the validity of reopening proceedings. Despite service(s) of various notices of hearing issued during the appellate proceedings, there was non-compliance which resulted in ex-parte decision by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. THE CHALLENGE TO REASSESSMENT 1.1 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['the Ld. CIT'] has erred in not considering the ground of challenge to reassessment proceedings. 1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad ["The Ld. JAO"] has initiated the reassessment proceedings without fulfilling the preconditions required to initiate the reassessment proceedings U/s 148-151 of the Act. 1.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sanction obtained u/s 151 for the issuance of notice u/s 148 and the order passed u/s 148A(d) are from the wrong authority.

4 In the above circumstances, facts and in law, the Appellant submits that the initiation of reassessment proceedings in the present case is without juri iction WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 2. THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151A 2.1 The Ld. JAO has erred in assuming the juri iction to issue the notice u/s 148 which is in non-compliance to the provisions of section 151A of the Act. 2.2 It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act in the present case is bad in law and therefore deserves to be quashed. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 3. ADDITION OF ₹ 38,54,500/- U/S 69B OF THE ACT 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made of transaction in crypto currency amounting to ₹ 38,54,500/- as an unexplained investment u/s 69B. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in making such addition without considering the fact that the investment amount is much lesser than the transaction and only net profit is taxable and not entire transaction value. 3.3 The addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted, being illegal. 3.3 Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the provisions of section 69B are not attracted in the present case therefore the addition made u/s 69B is unwarranted and illegal. 4. ADDITION OF ₹ 40,44,044/-AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69A 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of alleged unexplained entries to the tune of 2 40,44,044/-. 4.2 While doing so, none of the lower tax authorities has even mentioned the credit entries of which account the Ld. AO is alleging to be unexplained. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition made on the basis of such non-speaking assessment order. 4.3 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, no such addition is warranted and no provisions of section 69B are attracted in the present case and therefore the said addition made is illegal and deserves to be deleted. 5. LEAVE The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”

The Ld. AR submitted that the non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was not intentional but it was on account of certain unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. He submitted that the assessee is now in a position to present and 4

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and submitted that inspite of several opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee remained un-complied. The assessee also failed to file any compliance before the Ld. AO and hence the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is completely justified in rejecting the appeal of the assessee.

We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. It is admitted fact that the Ld. AO passed an ex-parte order qua the assessee for the reason that the assessee failed to offer any explanation with cogent supporting documentary evidence in respect of transactions done in crypto currency of Rs.38,54,500/- and credit entries of Rs.40,44,044/-. There was non-compliance during the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC as well which constrained him to pass an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the non-compliance before the lower authorities was not intentional and the assessee has a strong case on merits and is in a position to explain the nature and source of the impugned transactions by filing the requisite details/documentary evidence in support of his claim. Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the case, we deem it fit in the interest of justice and fair play, to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file for de-novo adjudication on various ground raised by the assessee before him after affording one final opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall appear and make submissions before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, unless required for the sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Having held so, because of the callous attitude of the assessee in not responding to the notices issued by the lower authorities, we levy a cost of Rs.1000/- on the assessee which shall 5

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “बी” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File.