SHAUNAK SHAILESH SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5(3)(5),, AHMEDABAD

The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in not entertaining the additional evidences placed before him under Rule 46A(1).

The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of Id. AO of reopening the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of reopening is without juri iction and in not permissible either in law or on facts. Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2–

The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the ex-parte order passed by the learned AO which was passed without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing in violation of principles of natural justice.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 40,85,000/- as accommodation entries.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of cash deposits of Rs. 3,47,28,400/- in bank account as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act.

Alternatively and without prejudice, the addition may kindly be limited to the peak credit amount.

Alternatively and without prejudice, the benefit of telescoping may kindly be granted.

Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. The action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the ld. AO in levying interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of appeal.”

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year declaring total income of ₹1,88,000/-. However, the assessing officer, on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing noted that the assessee had taken accommodation entry to the tune of ₹40,85,000/- from Radhe Corporation. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer added the aforesaid amount of ₹40,85,000/- on account of bogus transaction availed by the Shaunak Shailesh Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 - 3–

In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) observed that there was a delay of 44 days in filing of appeal before him. The assessee filed application for condonation of delay stating that at the time of receipt of order, he was travelling and hence could not pass the assessment order to his Chartered Accountant. Asst.Year –2012-13 - 4–

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 08/01/2025 (DR. BRR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 08/01/2025