DR PAMOD EKNATHRAO JADHAV,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

Cash Deposit during Demonetization: The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of ₹2,01,940/- as unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A, ignoring the appellant's explanation and documentary proof that the said amount represented cash received from patients during the demonetization period against supply of medicines and consultation fees.

Business Promotion Expenses: 3 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹8,934/- out of business promotion expenses treating the same as income of the appellant, without appreciating that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business

Unsecured Loans / Advances: The Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹23,50,000/- as unexplained loans/advances received, ignoring the detailed confirmations submitted from 27 persons, including those who collected the money on behalf of the appellant. The finding of the Assessing Officer that confirmations were not satisfactory is arbitrary and against the facts and evidences on record. 6. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The Learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the order without granting adequate opportunity to the appellant to produce additional evidences and without considering the confirmations, ITRs and balance sheets already submitted before the Assessing Officer.

Without Prejudice: Without prejudice to the above grounds, the additions made are highly excessive, arbitrary, and without any cogent basis, and therefore deserve to be deleted or suitably reduced.”

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in medical profession being a qualified doctor. The return of income was furnished on 29.10.2017 by declaring an income of Rs.19,39,970/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) respectively were issued to the assessee along with questionnaire. After considering the 4 submissions of the assessee, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act. The above assessed income includes various additions amounting in all to Rs.34,93,920/- on account of disallowance of agricultural income, unexplained money deposited during de monetisation u/s 69A, disallowance of business promotion expenses and disallowance on account of unsecured loan. 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution. 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. It is the sole prayer of the assessee that if one opportunity is provided to him, he is in a position to support the grounds of appeal before Ld. CIT(A). In this regard, we find that the appeal case was assigned to the 5 Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Gurugram on 16.05.2025 and thereafter only two opportunity were provided to the assessee, first on 30.05.2025 and second and last opportunity was provided to the assessee on 09.06.2025. Accordingly, we find that only 2 effective opportunities were provided to the assessee in a short time span of 10 days only, which cannot be said to be adequate/sufficient. 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) in this regard and also directed to produce reply submission, explanation and evidences in support of its contentions without taking any adjournment under any pretext otherwise Ld. CIT(A) appeal shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 28th day of November, 2025. (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER

गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,