GANESHBHAI VITHALBHAI CHUNARA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(7), AHMEDABAD

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 17.10.2023, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment
Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless
Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the addition made be the Assessing Officer by passing an ex-parte order u/s.144 of the Act which is illegal and bad in law hence the same should be cancelled.
2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless
Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in computing the total income of Rs.42,17,218/- making addition and which comprises of an amount of cash deposited of Rs.13.50,000/- in bank during period 08.09.2016 to 31.12.2016 and excluding the same the cash deposits of Rs.21,03,500/- for the period
Assessment Year: 2017-18
01.04.2016 to 31/12/2016 and other credit entries of Rs.7,73,718/- as alleged unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and taxing the same applying the provisions of Section 115BBE of Act.
3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless
Appel Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.42,17,218/- for the all credit entries in bank account which have been made from explained sources.
3. As per information available with the Department, it was noticed that during the period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, the assessee made cash deposits (details of which are reflected in paragraph no.3, page no.2 of the Assessment Order) after issuing statutory notice which was not responded by the assessee. The Assessing
Officer passed Assessment Order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and made addition of Rs.42,17,218/- under Section 69A of the Act and taxed the assessee under Section 115BBE of the Act at the rate of 60%.
4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
5. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that no proper evidence was filed under Rule 46A, therefore, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Ld. AR requested that at this juncture, the assessee has filed additional evidence before the Tribunal and the same to be admitted and the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the issues on merit.
6. The adjournment application filed by the Ld. Sr. DR is rejected.
7. We have heard the Ld. AR and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has not filed the details before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A) but the evidences which are submitted before the Tribunal appears to be supporting the contentions of the assessee as contemplated in the grounds of appeal before the CIT(A). Since the evidence was not on record, it will be appropriate to adjudicate these additional evidences and hence remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication of the evidences and after verifying these evidences decide the matter as per Income
Assessment Year: 2017-18
PBN/*

Copies to:
(1)
The appellant
(2)
The respondent

(3)
CIT

(4)
CIT(A)

(5)
Departmental Representative

(6)
Guard File
By order