MUKESH K. MULCHANDANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the appellate order dated 14/08/2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] arising out of the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) relating to the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for AY 2014-15 on 18/10/2014 Mukesh K. Mulchandani vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2014-15 - 2 - declaring total income of Rs.8,64,710/-. The assessee is a Civil Contractor and doing business in the name of proprietary- concern, M/s.M.K. Builders. Regular assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was completed on 24/11/2016 assessing total income at Rs.8,69,220/-. The assessment was revised u/s.263 of the Act to make addition of Rs.80 lakhs on account of unexplained credit in the books of the assessee as ‘advance’ received. Another addition of Rs.24,03,750/- was made by the AO on account of unexplained credit as per Form 26-AS.

Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.80 lakhs as the assessee failed to explain with necessary details on the second issue. On the second issue of addition of Rs.24,03,750/-, the assessee claimed the entire TDS but not recognized the corresponding revenue during the year under consideration, hence confirmed the addition.

Aggrieved against the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal.

At the outset, the Ld.Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us copy of the ledger account, wherein repayment made by the assessee along with HDFC Bank statement. Thus, claimed that the money was repaid by the assessee. Similarly, the assessee submitted for the subsequent AY 2015-16, the assessee offered the income receipt of Rs.24,03,750/-. Therefore, Ld.Counsel pleaded that taxing same amount again tantamounts to double taxation. Thus, the Ld.Counsel requested the matter may be set aside back to the file of JAO for passing fresh order taking note of above submissions.

The Sr.DR appearing for the Revenue has no serious objection in setting aside the matter.

We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of lower authorities. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and evidences produced before us, we set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities with a direction to the JAO to Mukesh K. Mulchandani vs. ITO Asst.Year - 2014-15 - 4 - consider the submission of the assessee and pass order in accordance with law by providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee.