MOHAMMAD RAFIQUE MOHAMMAD JALIL,ARNI vs. ITO, WARD-II, YAVATMAL

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 31/01/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017–18.

2 Mohammad Rafique Mohammad Jalil ITA no.265/Nag./2024 “5.3 During the course of appellate proceedings, sufficient opportunities were given to the appellant; however, no submissions/evidences/documents have been filed by the appellant to substantiate the grounds of appeal. The appellant was given specific opportunity to file any details filed by him before any authority physically/online earlier as no replies of the appellant are found existing in the online system. Thus, in the absence of any submission/documents, I have no material to interfere with observations and addition made by the AO. In view of the above, I upheld the decision of the AO and confirm the additions as discussed in para 5.3 above. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed.

3. Before me, during the course of haring, learned Authorised Representative, Shri Gandhi, appearing for the assessee, admitting the lapse on the part of the assessee for not responding to the explanation sought by the learned CIT(A). However, he pleaded that if this Bench grants the assessee one opportunity by restoring this appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer, so that the assessee is able to substantiate its case before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he prayed that the appeal be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A).

4. On the other hand, the learned D.R., Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, for the Revenue submitted that despite the learned CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunities to the assessee, however, the assessee did not appear before the learned CIT(A) and not furnished relevant details. He strongly supported the orders passed by the learned CIT(A).