SHILPA RAKESHBHAI SHETH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 25-09- 2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2018-19.

The grounds of appeal

The assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2014-15 on 25-11-2014 declaring total loss of Rs. 71,37,948/- being loss from business. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the order u/s. 143(3) was passed on 28-11-2016 with the assessed income at Rs. (-) Rs. 71,37,948/- making nil addition. In response to the notice u/s. 148, the assessee has not filed return. As per the information received, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was found to be one of the beneficiaries who had obtained accommodation entry to the extent of Rs. 6,44,75,574/- during the assessment year 2014-15 by trading into the shares of the penny stock M/s. Wagend Infra Ventures Ltd. As per the information received, investigation was carried out in the case of late Shri Rakesh R. Seth during which it was found that the assessee is having a bank account bearing total credit of Rs. 31,37,15,507/- including the cash credits to Rs. 56,30,001/- during the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer held that the credits in the bank account of the assessee was not in confirmity with the income declared in the return of income. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 33,95,57,754/- u/s. 69A as unexplained money and Rs. 22,94,024/- u/s. 68 as Shilpa Rakeshbhai Sheth, A.Y. 2014-15 unexplained credits. The assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B was completed on 23-05-2023 by assessing total income at Rs. 34,18,51,778/-.

Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has sent the notices of hearing on the different emails id which was not complied with by the assessee and thus the assessee was not given the proper opportunity for filing the details to plead the assessee’s case. The ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer has also not given proper opportunity to the assessee to file the details before the Assessing Officer as well. The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has not passed the order in consonance with the required procedure.

The ld. D.R. submitted that ample opportunity was given to the assessee and the assessee failed to appear before both the authorities as well as has not furnished relevant documents/details and therefore CIT(A) have rightly decided and made the additions.

We have both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has sent the notices on eight occasions to the different email id and the assessee has also not been given Shilpa Rakeshbhai Sheth, A.Y. 2014-15 sufficient opportunity to represent his case and submit the details in respect of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) has also not discussed the case elaborately on merit and therefore it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues after verifying the details filed by the assessee and decide the same as per Income Tax Act. The assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

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