CHIRAGBHAI HASMUKHBHAI PATEL,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, HIMATNAGAR

The learned CIT(Appeals) / NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE | NFAC) has grievously erred both in law and on facts in Confirming the order passed by Id AO [ITO WARD-4, HIMATNAGAR) u/s 147 of the Act by not properly considering the appellants plea based on direct decisions that reopening of assessment was without valid "Reason" to believe that deposits in bank amounted to escaped income. The order passed by Id AO being illegal and without juri iction, the same ought to be quashed. It be quashed now. Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2–

Without prejudice to the above ground, the Id CIT(A)/NFAC further erred both in law and on facts in confirming additions of Rs. 20,02,032/- comprising of explained sources as submitted to him that there was previous cash withdrawals from very same bank account which was re- deposited and the credits by cheques were from party whose confirmation was filed and also evident from narration in bank account statement. The additions being untenable on facts and against sanction of law be deleted now.

Without prejudice to the above grounds, the id CIT(A)/NFAC miserably failed to consider the fact that as the appellant being a farmer and had no any undisclosed source of other income, and also, since no books of account are at all required to be maintained, section 69A of the IT Act was wrongly invoked. The addition made by Id AO by wrongly invoking section 69A of the IT Act ought to be deleted. It be deleted now

Without prejudice to the above, the Id CIT(A)/NFAC further grievously erred in law and on facts in not considering that in view of the additional evidences furnished were vital and significant to render justice and bring facts on record and hence the same ought not to be rejected on technical grounds when the appellant had filed reply dated 11.11.2019 in response to AO's notice which could not be considered even when the assessment was finalized on 15.11.2019. It be so held now and additions made be deleted.

Both the lower authorities erred in law and on facts in not affording adequate. opportunity on the facts of the case as narrated in Statement of Facts before id CIT(A) and also now explained in the affidavit executed for the reasons of non compliance and non filing appeal in time. The same be considered in best interest of justice to finally find the facts.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the grounds at the 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the assessee could not file submission before the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Counsel further prayed that, given an opportunity due compliance will be made before the Assessing Officer. Since the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is also an ex-parte without adjudication of the issues on merits, we hold that no prejudice will be caused to the revenue if an opportunity is given to the CHIRAGBHAI h pATEL. Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3–

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.