APURVA MUKESH THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(2)(1) MUMBAI, KAUTILIYA BHAVAN

The affidavit further states that no mala fide can be attributed to the assessee and that grave prejudice would be caused if the appeal is dismissed on technical grounds without adjudication on merits, particularly when substantial additions have been made.

During the course of hearing, the learned Departmental Representative has fairly stated that he has no objection to the condonation of delay.

It is well settled that while considering an application for condonation of delay, the expression “sufficient cause”

The assessee is an individual and, during the relevant previous year, was carrying on business as a proprietor of M/s Bhavana Televentures. The assessee had not filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer received information from the office of the DDIT (Investigation) that the assessee had allegedly carried out suspicious bank transactions during F.Y. 2010–11. On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and accordingly issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2018. In response to the notice under section 148, the assessee filed his

During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had bank accounts with NKGSB Bank and ICICI Bank, and that the total credits therein aggregated to Rs. 7,86,59,827/-, the break-up being as under: i. Account CD/184 with NKGSB Bank: Rs. 2,86,26,218/- ii. Account CC/21 with NKGSB Bank: Rs. 4,99,68,910/- iii. Account No. 623805024468 with ICICI Bank, Laxmi Tower, BKC: Rs. 64,699/- 9. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory explanation and supporting evidences in respect of the aforesaid credits. The Assessing Officer, therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte under section 144, and treated the entire sum of Rs. 7,86,59,827/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The said amount was brought to tax under section 115BBE, and the total income was assessed at Rs. 7,95,02,133/-.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) noted that the assessment was completed ex parte and that the

The CIT(A), however, observed that the assessee failed to substantiate his contentions with documentary evidence. The CIT(A) further held that sufficient opportunity was granted during the assessment proceedings and that the assessee did not avail the same. On these premises, the CIT(A), dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition of Rs. 7,86,59,827/-.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC is bad in law on various counts and that the same should be set aside. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC has erred in confirming the order passed by the AO being violative of natural justice and thereby is bad in law and that the same should be set aside. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,86,59,827/- without the Assessee having effective adequate opportunity to make submissions on merits and that the addition made by the AO, so confirmed by the CIT Appeal NFAC should be deleted.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC has passed an ex-parte order without the Assessee being able to submit supporting evidences and documents substantiating his returned income and thereby the said ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC should be set aside. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC has not considered the preliminary submission of the Assessee that the amount of Rs. 7,86,59,827/- added by the Ld AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC has already been accounted for and forms part of the sales of the Assessee in his audited books of accounts for FY 2010-11 (AY 2011-12) and as such the said addition should be deleted. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC has not considered the balance sheet and profit and loss account for FY 2010-11 submitted by the Assessee reflecting his turnover and closing bank balances which incorporates the disputed addition amount of Rs. 7,86,59,827/- as part of sales of the Assessee and thereby the said addition of Rs. 7,86,59,827/- made by the Ld AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT Appeal NFAC should be deleted and annulled. 7. The Appellant craves the right to add, amend, alter, substitute and modify any or all the grounds at the time of hearing.