NEW SHRI KRISHNA PLAZA,SIKAR vs. ITO WD 2, SIKAR, SIKAR

ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[ for short CIT(A)] dated 15.04.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. n the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the lid CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte solely due to non appearance without appreciating the merits of the case. The action of the ld CIT(A) is unjustified arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice Relief may please be granted by setting aside the ex-parte order and restoring the matter to the file of the Id. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits NEW SHRI KRISHNA PLAZA VS ITO, WARD -2, SIKAR

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 4,90,925/- made under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act 1961 without appreciating the business exigencies and reasonable cause for incurring such expenditure in cash The action of the Id CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, and deserves to be set aside. Relief may please be granted by deleting the disallowance so confirmed

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 15,95,500 made under Section 69A of the Act on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits without properly appreciating the explanation and evidence submitted by the assessee The addition is arbitrary based on suspicion and conjecture, and liable to be deleted

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Id. AO in invoking the provisions of Section 1158BE of the Income-tax Act. 1961 The said invocation is erroneous, unwarranted, and without legal basis. Relief may please be granted by quashing the applicability of Section 115BBE in the present case.’’ 2.1 Apropos to the grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by confirming the action of the AO. The narration so made by the ld. CIT(A) in his order from para 5.1 to 6 is reproduced as under:- ‘’5.1 Decision: I have carefully considered the relevant and material facts on record in respect of this ground of appeal as brought out in the assessment order. During the assessment proceedings the assessing officer found that the assessee had made cash payments in a day of Rs. 4,90,925/-(more than 20,000-) which was in violation of section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 and the assessee had deposited unexplained/unaccounted cash amounting to Rs 15,95,500/- in its bank account during the demonetization period. Subsequently, a notice uls 142(1) of the Income Tax act. 1961 was issued along with NEW SHRI KRISHNA PLAZA VS ITO, WARD -2, SIKAR various other notices. The assessee failed to give a satisfactory reply and provide any required details. Hence, the A.O completed the assessment and passed order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act dated 19.12.2019 Assessing total Income at Rs. 21,20,320/- 5.2. It is further noted and as detailed in preceding para above that during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any evidence in support of its grounds of appeal

. The appellant has challenged the addition in the different grounds of appeal However, the appellant has not furnished any written submission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal challenging the addition The appellant has also not submitted any copy of its written submission or documentary evidence filed during the assessment proceedings. The onus lies on the appellant to support any claim by bringing in cogent documentary evidence but the appellant has not even filed a written submission in support of its grounds of appeal despite several opportunities given as detailed in the preceding paras, In absence of any written submission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal, I have no basis to take a contrary view in the appellate proceedings as i have no reason to interfere with the assessment order As such, I do not find any infirmity in the order of Assessing Officer Therefore. Addition of Rs. 15,95,500/- and Rs. 4,90,925/- is hereby sustained on merits.

6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to restore this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication as the earlier counsel engaged by the assessee neither actively pursued the matter before the ld. CIT(A) nor made compliance to the notices of the ld.

NEW SHRI KRISHNA PLAZA VS ITO, WARD -2, SIKAR CIT(A). Hence, the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order by confirming the action of the AO as to the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.20,86,425/- (i.e. 15,95,500 + 4,90,925) in the assessment order. To this effect, the partner of the firm Shri Sharwan Kumar Budrak has filed an affidavit deposing the above facts as to the lapse on the part of earlier counsel to pursue the case before the ld. CIT(A). 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR did not object to the request of the ld. AR of the assessee to restore the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm which has filed the ITR for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs.33,890/-.During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had made cash payments in a day of Rs.4,90,925/- (more than 20,000/-) which was in violation of Section 40A(3) of the Act and the assessee had deposited unexplained / unaccounted cash amounting to Rs.15,95,000/- in its bank account during the demonetization period. Subsequently, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued alongwith various other notices. The assesse failed to give a satisfactory reply to the AO. Hence, the AO completed the assessment and passed order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated NEW SHRI KRISHNA PLAZA VS ITO, WARD -2, SIKAR 19-12-2019 assessing the total income at Rs.21,20,320/- and thus making following additions in the hands of the assessee (1) Rs.4,90,925/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act. (2) Rs.15,95,500/- u/s 69A of the Act In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee failed to furnish any reply/ documentary evidence in respect of its appeal filed before him despite several opportunities to the assessee. Since it is an admitted fact that the assessee is ex-parte before the ld. CIT(A),therefore, he could not put forth his defence. It was the bounded duty of the assessee to appear before the statutory authorities as and when called for. It is noticed that several opportunities were provided to the assessee for settling the issue but the assessee remained lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case. However, we are of the view that lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Hence, the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain 2.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 30 /09/2025.