SHRI VICKY RAJESH LALWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(5), AHMEDABAD

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18.

3. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in invoking the provisions of S.115BBE of the Act.

4. Alternatively, and without prejudice, the addition may kindly be limited to the peak credit amount.

5. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in charging interest u/s.234A/B/C/D.

6. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in confirming the action of AO in initiating penalty u/s.271AAC of the Act which is wholly unsustainable in law and on facts of the case.

3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunities of hearing to furnish details, clarifications, and explanations to substantiate the source of cash deposits. However, despite being granted multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to furnish the requisite details or explanations before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A), based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee as ex-parte. We also find that the assessee remained non-compliant before the Assessing Officer and failed or furnish any documentary evidence in support of cash deposits treated as unexplained money. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Hence, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee shall submit all the relevant bank statement/submission/document before the Assessing Officer and comply