AWEZ WAHAB SHAIKH,SILLOD vs. THE ITO, WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. In the past also, there was no representation on the dates fixed for hearing on 05.06.2025, 14.07.2025 07.08.2025 and 09.09.2025. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal but they all relate to the addition of Rs.13,46,800/- for unexplained cash deposit and for not providing proper opportunity of hearing during the assessment proceedings.

I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record placed before me. Assessee is an individual and ld. Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information that cash of Rs.13,46,800/- has been deposited in Bandhan Bank, Sillod during the demonetization period by the assessee and further the assessee has not furnished regular return of income, issued notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. Though the assessee filed the return on 12.07.2019 along with Tax Audit Report, however, ld. AO did not consider the same observing that the return is not valid as the same is neither filed u/s.139 nor filed within the time allowed. The facts emerged from the Tax Audit Report (placed in the Paper Book) is that the assessee is into the business of sale and purchase of Mobile phones and accessories in the name of M/s. Royal Mobile Shoppy. Further the assessee has claimed that the alleged deposits in the bank are from sale proceeds of the Mobiles and accessories. Still ld. AO proceeded to pass Best Judgment Assessment u/s.144 of the Act making addition of Rs.13,46,800/- u/s.69A of the Act assessing the income at Rs.18,66,520/-.

I further note that in the appellate proceedings before ld.CIT(A) assessee has filed the submissions stating that no proper opportunity was granted by ld. AO because the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was delivered to the previous Tax Counsel at email id rohan.badale@gmail.com and due to non- communication assessee failed to appear before ld. AO on few occasions. It was also submitted that assessee is carrying on the business of purchase and sale of mobile devices, accessories and ancillary items and books are of accounts are 3 Awez Wahab Shaikh regularly maintained and audited. It is also stated before ld.CIT(A) that in the subsequent A.Y. 2018-19 ld. AO has accepted the explanation about cash deposit in the bank account and the sale proceeds from the business carried out by the assessee. Tax Auditor has also verified that the said deposit is out of the sale proceeds appearing in the books of account but still ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the ld. AO.

On going through the finding of both the lower authorities and also the submissions made by the assessee, I find that the assessee is carrying out the business of purchase and sale of Mobile phones and books of account are audited and the Tax Audit Report has also been submitted with the return of income filed in reply to notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. However, since ld,AO has passed the Best Judgment assessment for non compliance on the part of the assessee which has arisen due to non communication of information to the assessee, I deem it proper to remit back the issues raised on merit relating to addition of Rs.13,46,800/- back to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. Ld. JAO shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee to file the Tax Audit Report, purchase and sale bills and other relevant details to explain the source of alleged cash deposit. After going through the same, ld. JAO shall decide in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to update latest email and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.