INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-44(1), DELHI vs. VISHAP BAJAJ, DELHI

At the time of hearing, Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,37,20,968/- made by the AO u/s. 69A by ignoring the fact that the assessee has made import only in November, 2016 and cash sales were made from 3.8.2016 and also ignored the fact that the assessee has claimed to have purchase electronic components of LNP parts of DTH which is a raw material used for Dish Antenna cannot be used by individual. He further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) also erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained money by ignoring the fact that the assessee was given ample opportunities to justify the claim, but the assessee failed to furnish the requisite details alongwith supporting corroborative documentary evidence during the course of assessment proceedings and also ignored the fact that assessee has failed to furnish return and gets his account audited. He further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) while accepting the additional evidences filed on 12.3.2024 without calling a remand report from the AO. In view of above, it was requested to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and issues in dispute may be remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice for hearing, hence, we are proceeding the assessee exparte qua, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant records. We find that Ld. CIT(A) in his order has observed that AO himself admits that the assessee responded to the show cause notice and submitted ledger, cash book and invoices, which contradicts the assumption of non-compliance underlying the section 144 assessment and AO has drawn adverse conclusions without proper verification; ignoring material evidence submitted by the assessee and relied on conjectures and unsubstantiated assumptions thus incorrectly invoked section 69A to tax the gross business turnover as unexplained income. We further find that Ld. CIT(A) while accepting the additional evidences filed on 12.3.2024 without calling a remand report from the AO has decided the appeal in favour of the assessee, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In view of the aforesaid background, facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the end of justice, in our considered view, the matter needs to be sent back to the file of the Assessing Officer in order to complete the assessment proceedings de novo, in accordance with law, keeping in mind the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter and contention raised by the Revenue, as aforesaid. Needless to say that the assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assesee is also directed 2 | P a g e to fully cooperate in the proceeding before the AO and provide him all the necessary documents / evidences in order to substantiate his case. We hold and direct accordingly.