VIPULBHAI SHENDHABHAI PATEL,PATAN, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, PATAN, GUJARAT, PATAN, GUJARAT

O R D E R PER: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: Delay Condoned The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi Ahmedabad, vide order dated 15.07.2024 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

1. Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in dismissing appeal of the assessec Ex- Parte in as much as Hearing Notices issued were not served to the Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2– assessee. The Notices were sent on A.R who did not inform the assessee. Appeal was filed on 06/02/2021 whereas only 3 Notices of hearing were issued in one month time of 2024. The dismissal of appeal Ex-Parle is against natural justice.

, it is specifically mentioned that assessee is doing construction business and cash was deposited in bank accounts out of business receipts. Same fact is also disclosed in ITR and form No. 26AS of the assessee. The appeal was dismissed without considering these facts. At the most Hon. CIT(A) could have considered Section 44AD on these facts.

3. Hon. CIT(A) has erred in confirming that, mandatory notice was issued by A.O, However mandatory Notice u/s 143(2) was not served / received by assessee.

4. Hon. CIT(A) has erred in not deciding 1st ground of appeal that Ex- Parte assessment done by A.O. is not valid. In as much as, assesses has filed the return u/s 139 and shown business income therein.

5. Hon. CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance made by A.O. of Rs.24,26,132 being cash deposited in bank accounts. In as much as, assessee is doing construction business and out of business income and withdrawals from bank accounts and agricultural income, cash was deposited during demonetization period. These facts are disclosed in Return u/s 139 and Form No. 26AS of the assessee.

6. Hon. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the higher rate of tax and surcharge by A.O. u/s 115HI.1E. In as much as, cash deposited in bank account is out of business receipts. Section 115BBE do not apply to business income.

3. On going through the record, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has awarded three opportunities of hearing to the assessee to furnish the supportive evidence with regard to the sources of cash deposit. In pursuance to the same, the assessee failed to submit any substantial documents/replies. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We also find Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3– that assessee has not complied even before the Assessing Officer. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all the details/clarification/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities. 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 for conducting assessment de-novo. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.