ZAHIR IQBAL LALIWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2–

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing order without providing enough opportunities to represent the case of the assessee.

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing order without considering that CA Nazim Rajaiwala, who was handling the appeal had expired and email id on portal belonged to him, as a result, the assessee was unaware of the notices.

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,26,89,915/- as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 based on credit entries in the bank account.

On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) erred in enhancing assesee’s income by Rs.1,33,90,675/- u/s.68 based on entries reflected in 26AS, without issuing any prior notice.

It is therefore prayed that the above addition/disallowance made by the assessing officer may please be deleted.

The assessment in this case was completed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act. In the said assessment, the AO made an addition of ₹1,26,89,915/- under section 68, on the ground that the assessee had failed to furnish any explanation with respect to certain receipts shown as contract payments.

The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) observed that as per Form No. 26AS, the gross contract receipts of the assessee amounted to ₹2,60,80,590/-, whereas the AO had considered only ₹1,26,89,915/-. Accordingly, the CIT(A) held that there was an understatement of ₹1,33,90,675/- and enhanced the assessed income to ₹2,60,80,590/-, Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 3–

Aggrieved by the enhancement of income, the assessee has come in appeal before us. The principal grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) enhanced the assessed income from ₹1,26,89,915/- to ₹2,60,80,590/- without issuing any specific notice to the assessee or granting an opportunity to explain the discrepancy.

The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the enhancement made by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as no opportunity was provided before enhancing the income. The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A).

We have heard both parties and perused the orders of the Revenue authorities. It is evident that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed ex parte despite issuance of multiple notices. The enhancement of income was solely based on the difference between the amount considered by the AO and the gross receipts as per Form No. 26AS. Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 4–

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file.