RAJVI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts of the case in confirming the order of the AO in making addition of Rs.35,03,698/- being bogus profit u/s.68 of the Act.

On going through the record, I find that notices of hearing were issued on several occasions, but assessee failed to comply with the notices and has not brought anything on Asst.Year 2014-15 - 2– record to rebut the finding of the Assessing Officer. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has fairly submitted that assessee has neither complied before the Ld.CIT(A) nor before the Assessing Officer to present his case and requested that, given an opportunity, all the details/clarification/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities. I find that assessee has not even complied before the Assessing Officer, hence in the interest of justice the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de-novo with a cost of Rs.3000/- imposed on the assessee. The cost of Rs.3000/- has to be deposited into “Prime Minister Relief Fund” and the receipt shall be submitted before the JAO who shall take it on record before passing of the order giving effect to the order of the ITAT. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

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