JASHWANTBHAI MAHIJIBHAI BARIA,PANCHMAHAL vs. ITO, WARD 1, GODHRA, GODHRA

O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

Invalid Proceedings: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘’”CIT(A)”] erred in fact and in law in dismissing the appeal without granting proper opportunity of being heard before disposal of the matter to the appellant. Asst. Year : 2019-20 - 2– 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of learned AO, National Faceless Assessment Centre (“the AO”) in passing the order which is invalid in law and therefore liable to be quashed. Without prejudice to the above: Invalid Appellate Proceedings: 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in passing an appellate order without considering grounds of appeal s and Statement of Facts submitted by the appellant.

4. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of issuing notice under section 147 based on search material even it has to be assessed under section153C of the Act as search action of documents referred was conducted on 05.11.2020, i.e. before 01.04.2021.

5. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice entirely based on information received from NMS module of Insight portal without conducting any inquiry, verifying material on record and application of mind.

6. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the approving authority who has granted approval for issuance of the impugned notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) of the Act in a mechanical manner without verifying any material to check the facts. Without prejudice to the above: Addition u/s 69 – Rs. 35,18,007:

7. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of learned AO in treating the payment of Rs. 35,18,007 without providing copies of the documents relied upon to the appellant.

8. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of learned AO in treating the payment of Rs. 35,18,007 as undisclosed paid in cash based on loose paper found from third party premise without having name of the appellant on it. Other Grounds:

9. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in initiation penalty proceedings u/s. 270AAC of the Act.

10. Your appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. Asst. Year : 2019-20 - 3–

3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded five opportunities of hearing to furnish the requisite details, clarifications, and explanations in support of the claim pertaining to transactions in immovable property. However, despite being granted multiple opportunities, the assessee remained non-compliant and 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 ex parte. At the time of hearing before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Since the primary adjudication of the matter has not been carried out, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents, evidences, and bank details before the Revenue authorities and to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments