BHAVIN MANOHARBHAI PARMAR,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, MEHSANA

The assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority u/s.250 is bad in law and deserved to be uncalled for.

The assessment officer as well as first appellate authority has erred in law and on facts in making and confirming respectively the addition of Rs.1,38,32,749/-. The same deserves to be deleted. Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 2–

The appellant craves to reserve his right to add, alter, amend or delete any ground of appeal during the course of hearing.

At the outset, we find that the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer since the assessee failed to submit any substantial documents regarding the cash deposit in the account maintained with Sri Renuka Mata Multi State Co-op Credit Society Ltd. Vijapur amounting to Rs.1,35,76,381/-. Thus, the addition on account of unexplained deposit u/s.69 was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). We also find that assessee even failed to submit any evidence in support of his claim before the Assessing Officer. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an adjournment application. Having gone through the fact, we hold that no prejudice will be caused to the revenue if the Assessing Officer is allowed to examine the details/explanation submitted by the assessee. Hence, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer after examine the details/submission and take decision as per the provision of the Act. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the Assessing officer from time to time without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

In the result, the appeal filed by 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.