AJIT BONDRIYA,LIMASSOL, CYPRUS vs. ITO 2(5), BHOPAL, BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH

The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee is an individual. For AY 2016-17 under consideration, the assessee did not file any return of income (Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee was engaged in merchant navy and did not have sufficient taxable income in India obligating the assessee to file return). The AO, on the basis of information in his possession from Insight Portal of Income-tax Department revealing that the assessee had (i) purchased property of Rs. 1,45,63,349/-, (ii) made payment of Rs. 43,69,005/- against transfer of property; and (iii) sold equity shares of Rs. 2,16,400/- during the previous year 2015-16 relevant to AY 2016-17, issued notice u/s 148 dated 23.03.2023 to assessee to undertake assessment of assessee u/s 147. The assessee, however, did not comply with this notice. Thereafter, the AO issued notices u/s 142(1)/144/Show-cause notice to assessee from time to time in response to which the assessee filed part replies [Para 2 of assessment-order]. The AO has noted the submissions made by assessee in Para 3.2 & 4.1 of assessment-order. However, by means of Para 4.2 & 4.3 of assessment-order, the AO rejected assessee’s submission and ultimately made additions of (i) Rs. 1,45,63,649/- u/s 69 on account of unexplained investment in property and (ii) Rs. 2,16,400/- on account of capital gain from sale of shares. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.

Heard the learned Representatives of both sides and case records perused.

Ld. AR for assessee instantly carried us to the orders passed by lower authorities. Referring to assessment-order, he demonstrated that the AO has made impugned additions for lack of evidences. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was employed on merchant ships and had to remain outside India for most of the period, hence the assessee could not file all documents to AO although the assessee filed part replies. Thereafter, referring to the paras 2.2 & 3.1 of the order of first-appeal, he demonstrated that the CIT(A) has merely extracted the observations of AO and upheld the assessment-order passed by AO without discussing the voluminous Paper-books, two in number running over 54 pages & 319 pages of evidences, filed by assessee to CIT(A) during first appellate proceedings vide e-filing acknowledgements No. 614942871171024 & 615108561171024. Copies of the Index of Paper- Books filed by assessee to CIT(A) are filed at Page 1 & 2 of Paper-Book submitted to ITAT; the same are scanned and re-produced below:

Therefore, Ld. AR submitted that in the situation the present matter is fit for remand to the file of AO for adjudication afresh after examination of Page 6 of 8 assessee’s evidences. Ld. AR acknowledges that the assessee shall be representing his case before AO if an opportunity is given and prays that the present matter should be remanded to the file of AO.

Ld. DR for revenue agrees with the prayer of Ld. AR but makes a request to direct the assessee to represent his case before AO diligently and do not seek unnecessary adjournments.

Considering above submissions of parties; having regard to the principle of natural justice and also bearing in mind that no prejudice would be caused to revenue if the present matter is restored at the level of AO, we remand this matter back to the file of AO for adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. 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 diligent 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.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.