GHANSHYAMBHAI NANALAL CHARANDAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-3(3)(2)), AHMEDABAD

Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who gave eight opportunity of hearings between 18-07-2018 to 12-12-2023. As there was no response from the assessee, the appeal was dismissed by passing exparte order and confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Order so passed by the Ld. AO & the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC is bad in law, illegal and exceeding the juri iction conferred under the limited scrutiny assessment for "large cash deposit in saving bank account", besides being in violation of the principle of natural justices & equity, as having been passed without considering the material already placed on records; as such liable to be quashed and set aside.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has grossly erred in dismissing grounds of appeal so raised before him and thereby, further erred in concurring with the A.O. in making addition of Rs.88,60,909/- on account of unexplained cash credit, when there is no justification. The impugned additions so made by the A.O. may kindly be deleted.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has grossly erred in dismissing grounds of appeal so raised before him and thereby, further erred in concurring with the A.O. in making addition of Rs.75,19,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in land which is beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, as such there is no justification to concur with the finding of the A.O. The impugned additions so made by the A.O. may kindly be deleted.

Ld. Counsel Shri Anil Kshatriya appearing for the assessee submitted the assessment being a ‘limited scrutiny’ but the Assessing Officer travelled beyond the limited scope thereby the entire assessment order itself vitiated. Further Ld. A.O. has not obtained necessary sanction from Competent Authority to make ‘complete scrutiny assessment’ and therefore the entire assessment order is liable to be quashed. Ld. Counsel further submitted that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee filed detailed Written Submission dated 24-01-2019 in physical form before Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad. In turn, Ld. CIT(A) vide his letter dated 22- 02-2019 called for a Remand Report from the Assessing Officer. In compliance, the Ld. A.O. filed his Remand Report on 23-07-2020 to Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad. Subsequently the appeal was migrated to NFAC in September 2020, but without considering the Written Submission and Remand Report from the Assessing Officer, Ld. CIT(A) passed the exparte appellate order. However Ld. Counsel admitted that due to change in Tax Consultant, the assessee was not aware of the hearing dates given by Ld. NFAC, therefore pleaded the appellate order is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, Ld. Sr. D.R. Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni appearing for the Revenue filed before us copy of the Remand Report dated 23-

We have perused the materials available on record including the various submissions filed by the assessee and copy of the Remand Report dated 23-07-2020 filed by the Department. Since Ld. CIT(A), NFAC passed the exparte appellate order without considering the Written Submission filed by the assessee as well as the Remand Report given by the Assessing Officer. In the interest of Principle of Natural Justice, we deem it fit to set aside the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC to consider the appeal on merits and pass order by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee should cooperate by filing all relevant materials/documents and also free to raise the additional grounds before Ld. NFAC.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Revenue