YOGESH CHANDULAL SHETH,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Now, the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken by the assessee in this appeal:

Shri Samit L. Jain, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that no compliance was made by the assessee in the course of assessment as well as the penalty proceedings for the reason that no notices were received by him. He contended that proceeding initiated u/s.147 of the Act was not valid as the notice u/s.148 of the Act was not served on the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating the grounds taken by the assessee on merits. He submitted that the reopening was challenged before the Ld. CIT(A), which was not adjudicated on merits. The ld. AR requested for another opportunity to the assessee to explain the cash deposits.

Per contra, Shri B. P. Srivastava, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that no compliance was made by the assessee either before the AO or before the Ld. CIT(A). He, therefore, justified the orders passed by the lower authorities.

We have considered the rival submissions. Since, the assessee has contended that the notice u/s.148 of the Act was not served on him, a direction was given to the Revenue to bring on , 1869 & 1879/Ahd/2024 [Yogesh C. Sheth ] - 4 – record the evidence for service of the notice u/s.148 of the Act. In this regard, the ld. Sr. DR has filed a copy of letter dated 01.01.2025 from the AO (DCIT, Circle-33(3), Ahmedabad). The AO in his letter dated 01.01.2025 has reported that the assessee did not file his return of income for A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 and the address of the assessee as available in ITBA Portal was “B 46, Jivraj Park Society, Jivraj Park, Ahmedabad 380051”. Further that no email ID of the assessee was mentioned in the ITBA Portal. It was further reported that the notice u/s.148 of the Act was sent to the address of the assessee as appearing in ITBA Portal through Speed Post, which was returned by the postal authority with the remark “Left”. The subsequent notice dated 23.05.2019 was also sent through Speed Post to the assessee’s address for compliance in the course of assessment proceedings, which was also returned by the Postal Authority with the remarks “Not Known”. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued on 03.10.2019 which was sent through Speed Post, which too was returned with the remark “Left”. A copy of these evidences have been brought on record by the AO. In the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee did not dispute these evidences and facts presented by the Revenue. The Ld. AR, however, conceded that there was a change in the address of the assessee, as a result of which, the notices sent by the Department at the earlier address were not received. Further, he fairly admitted that change of address of the assessee was also not communicated to the Department in time. In view of these facts and the evidences as brought on record by the Revenue, we hold that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was rightly issued by the AO and duly served on the assessee at the address as available with the Department at the , 1869 & 1879/Ahd/2024 [Yogesh C. Sheth ] - 5 – relevant point of time. The ground no-1 taken by the assessee is dismissed.

At the same time, the fact remains that the assessee did not make any compliance before the AO and, therefore, the order was passed ex-parte. Before the Ld. CIT(A), who had allowed four opportunities to the assessee, the assessee had sought adjournment on two occasions and no compliance was made on the other two occasions. As a result of the non-compliance by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee has not explained the reason for non- compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, deem it proper to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) on the assessee which should be paid to the Income Tax Department within two weeks of receipt of this order.

Since the issue of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee was not examined on merits, we deem it proper to set aside the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to allow another opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits. Needless to mention, the assessee is required to make compliance before the AO and not to seek adjournment without any compelling reason. The Ld. AR of the assessee informed that the correct address of the assessee has now been updated in the ITBA Portal. In case, the assessee doesn’t make compliance, the AO is free to pass the order as deemed fit. The AO will proceed in the matter after verifying that the cost as imposed is paid by the assessee. The ground no-2 taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. , 1869 & 1879/Ahd/2024 [Yogesh C. Sheth ] - 6 – 10. In the result the appeal in is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

This appeal pertains to penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act dated 16.03.2022 imposing penalty of Rs.7,93,090/- on the assessee for the A.Y. 2012-13. The grounds taken by the assessee are as under:

We have heard the ld. AR and the Sr. DR in the matter. Since the matter of quantum addition has been set aside to the AO, this appeal is also set aside to the file of the AO with a direction to re-decide the issue of levy of penalty after completion of fresh assessment.

This appeal pertains to A.Y. 2013-14 and the facts are identical as in and the grounds are also identical. In this year, the assessee had made cash deposit of 1869 & 1879/Ahd/2024 [Yogesh C. Sheth ] - 7 – Rs.51,91,000/- in his bank account. As the facts are identical, the decision of for A.Y. 2012-13 is applicable mutatis mutandis as well. However, there will be so separate cost on the assessee for this year as the appeals were decided by the ld. CIT(A) on the same date. Therefore, the matter for A.Y. 2013-14 is also set aside to the AO with a direction to allow another opportunity to the assessee. is partly allowed for statistical purpose.