GANPATBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, GANDHINAGAR

O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- Delay Condoned The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee as against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, vide order dated 03.12.2024 relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding validity of reopening of assessment. Asst. Year : 2013-14 - 2–

3. Assessment order passed by the Ld.AO is void & illegal as no addition is made for reasons for which assessment is reopened.

4. The assessment order is void & illegal as Ld.AO has not provided copy of reason for reopening of assessment.

5. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding addition of alleged unexplained money of Rs.14,50,000/-

6. Appellant craves Liberty to add, amend, alter or modify any or all any grounds of appeal before final hearing.

3. The assessee is a partner in a partnership firm named Earth Homes. The assessee filed his return of income for AY 2013-14 on 08.07.2013, declaring a total income of Rs.1,91,428/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under section 143(3) of the Act to verify the cash deposits made by the assessee in his savings bank account. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished details of his income along with supporting documents and bank statements, which were examined by the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer specifically requested the assessee to submit supporting evidence regarding the substantial amounts received and to explain the nature of such receipts. The assessee failed to furnish any information or rebut the observations of the Assessing Officer.

4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. Asst. Year : 2013-14 - 3– 6. At the outset, it is observed that the assessee was categorically required to submit supporting evidence explaining the source and nature of the substantial amounts received. However, no cogent evidence was furnished before either the Assessing Officer or the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, given an opportunity, the assessee would furnish all relevant details, clarifications, and explanations along with supporting documents to substantiate the source of the cash deposits. Considering the facts and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The assessee is directed to submit all relevant bank statements, documents, and explanations before the Assessing Officer and to comply with notices issued by the revenue authorities without seeking unnecessary adjournments.