ANKUSHKUMAR MADHUBHAI NAKRANI,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

Rs.88,12,000/- made by the AO under section 69A of the Act. Whereas, vide the assessee challenges the confirmation of penalty levied by the AO and 540/SRT/2024 2 under section 271AAC(1) of the Act, which is consequential to aforesaid quantum addition.

At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the impugned orders of the ld.CIT(A) to submit that same are ex parte of the assessee. The ld.counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to appeal form before the ld.CIT(A) i.e. Form No.35 filed before the ld.CIT(A), wherein, email address of the assessee for service of notice has been mentioned as nakranee_ankush@yahooco.in. The ld.counsel has further invited our attention to the details of the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A), as downloaded from the income tax portal, which showed that the notices of hearing were sent by the ld.CIT(A) on different email address, which is mentioned as srshethtax@gmail.com. The ld.counsel for the assessee, therefore, has submitted that the notices sent through electronic mode by the ld.CIT(A) did not come to the notice of the assessee, because they were sent at different email-id and not at the email-id as mentioned in the Form No.35. He, therefore, has submitted that non-representation of the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) was not intentional, but due to the aforesaid reasons. He further submitted that the assessee a fair case on merits, and that the assessee may be given an opportunity to present his case before the ld.AO. In this respect, he has submitted that though the assessee had furnished various details and explanations before the AO, however, certain crucial facts and documents, which were relevant for just and proper decision of the case, have remained to be furnished before the AO. He, therefore, has requested that matter may be restored to the file of the AO.