JYOTIBEN CHANDRAKANT DARYANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Jyotiben Chandrakant Daryani, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Plot No.2261/B, Tulsi, Ward-1(2), Talaja Road, Hill Drive, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364002. [PAN :AIPPD8065 M] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Hiren J Trivedi, AR Respondent by: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 15.07.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

Delay Condoned This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Bhubaneshwar, vide order dated 22.01.2025. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:

1. In law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT (Appeal) NFAC has passed the appellate order without providing video hearing as provided in Faceless Appeals Jyotiben C Daryani Vs. CIT Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 2– Scheme more particularly when Appellant has stated that proper opportunity of being heard should be provided before disposing of the its appeal.

2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is ex- parte and totally in breach of natural justice.

3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the Ld. CIT(Appeal) NFAC erred in not appreciating the fact that the order of learned AO is passed in breach of natural justice and thus deserved to be quashed and set-aside.

4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC has erred in confirming addition under section 69 on account of alleged unaccounted investment of Rs. 15,79,360/-

5. Without prejudice to above, in law and in the facts and circumstances the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234A/B/C/D.

6. Without prejudice to above, in law and in the facts and circumstances the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC erred in initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3. At the outset, the assessee submitted that the order has been passed without affording proper opportunity to the assessee. It is prayed that given an opportunity, due compliance would be made before the Revenue Authorities. Ld. DR opposed the plea in Jyotiben C Daryani Vs. CIT Asst. Year : 2011-12 - 3– principle. Having considered the submissions of both the parties, we find that the interest of justice would be served if an opportunity is given to the assessee. Hence, the matter is being remanded to the Assessing Officer for assessment de-novo.