PRADEEP JAISWAL,SONKATCH vs. ITO 1(2), IND, INDORE

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred upholding the addition made by Id. AO on estimation basis of Rs. 75,74,956/-. The Appellant prays that the said addition be directed to be deleted.

Page 1 of 5 AY 2018-19 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred upholding the addition made by Id. AO under section 69A of the Income Tax Act of Rs. 1,47,370/-. The Appellant prays that the said addition be directed to be deleted.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred upholding the addition made by ld. AO of Interest Income Rs. 3,10,196/-. The Appellant prays that the said addition be directed to be deleted.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") erred in exparte dismissing the appeal of the Assessee and thereby confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Appellant prays that the said order be set aside to the Assessing Officer for hearing on merits.”

2. When the case is called, none appeared on behalf of assessee/ appellant but, however, an application seeking adjournment is filed by CA Pankaj Shah, Ld. AR for assessee. It is stated in adjournment-application that the arguing counsel is not keeping well but the application is not supported by any evidence. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for revenue/respondent is available and ready for submissions. In view of this, the adjournment is declined, hearing is proceeded and the present appeal is being disposed of after considering the material available on record and submissions of Ld. DR for revenue/respondent.

Page 2 of 5 CIT(A) has also dismissed assessee’s first-appeal by passing following order:

“5.Decision I have considered the grounds of appeal

, statement of facts, submissions made by the Appellant, assessment order and evidences on records. 5.1. Ground 2 &

3. I have considered the submissions made by the Appellant. I have also perused the assessment order. It is observed that total income was arrived at Rs. 80,32,522 by the AO on the basis of information available on record, like Audit Report filed u/s 44AB for the year and the year before and Form

26. AS. How the total income was determined has been described in details in the assessment order. An amount of Rs. 75,74,956/- is arrived at, as business income of the assessee. Further, an amount of Rs. 1,47,370/- was treated as unexplained credits u/s 69A of the IT Act, and Rs. 3,10,196/- was treated as interest income, in the year under consideration. No cognizance was given to the return filled on 25.04.2022, as the appellant did not e- verify the return filled, in terms of sec. 140 of the Act, till the date of passing of assessment order. The appellant did not respond to various notices issued by the AO as per the FAS. Further, it was observed from the assessment order that during the assessment proceedings the Appellant has remained non- compliant to all the notices issued u/s 142(1). The Appellant has also not responded to show-cause notices issued, in terms of sec. 144B, before completion of the assessment. Thus, the Appellant chose not to respond and explain the disputed issues on which the AO proposed addition during the assessment proceedings, to arrive at the total income for the year. The appellant has not controverted the addition made by the AO by bringing on record any material, evidence, document which he can rely upon. During the appellate proceeding too, before the CIT (A), copy of books of accounts maintained, bills, vouchers, bank statement etc, were not brought on record or furnished to support his contention. The appellant also did not intend to adduce any additional evidence in the course of this appeal to substantiate his contention [vide: Pt no.12 & 12.1 of Form No.35] It was also noted that no Profit & Loss Account and Balance Sheet was enclosed with the audit report filled online on Page 3 of 5 AY 2018-19 31.03.2019. No additional evidence other than copy of MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS IN THE FINANCE BILL, 2024, copy of BUDGET 2024-2025 copy of THE FINANCE (NO. 2) BILL, 2024 and copy of BUDGET 2024-2025, were provided. The appellant did not provide any explanation during the course of appellate proceeding, in respect of the deposits being made, including cash deposits, in the bank accounts recorded by the AO in the assessment order. No fresh material or justification for the loss claimed has been placed on records. The AO has made a reasonable assessment as per law. in absence of any corroborative evidence to substantiate the loss, no interference is found necessary with the order passed by the AO. The addition made by the AO is therefore sustained. The explanation offered remained general and un-substantiated. 5.2. Ground 3, 4 & 5 Since the Appellant has not added, altered, amended, modified, withdrawn or deleted any ground or grounds of appeal

, these grounds are dismissed as not being pressed.

6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”

4. The orders of lower-authorities were deliberated and finally it was thought fit to give one more opportunity to assessee in the interest of justice and accordingly remand this case back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, subject to imposition of a suitable cost upon assessee. Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection against remand but, however, he requested to give stricter directions to assessee to ensure compliance before AO.

Page 4 of 5 mention that the AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Order pronounced by putting up on notice board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 22/12/2025