VIRENDRA VIJAYSINGH PARDESHI,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 2(1) NASHIK, NASHIK

ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1. The learned CIT-Appeals erred in upholding the addition of Rs.2500000 made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, merely for non-appearance relying solely on procedural default and ignoring that appellate proceedings are continuation of assessment and must be decided on merits based on record and written submissions already filed.

The learned CIT-Appeals failed to appreciate that the addition of ₹25,00,000 u/s 69A is based solely on unverified Excel sheet and statement of a third party without corroboration. The addition is unsustainable in law as the Department failed to prove the Appellant's actual possession or discovery of the alleged unexplained money.

5. The learned CIT-Appeals failed to address the significant fact that the Department itself had not made any income addition (u/s 68 or 69A) in A.Y, 2017-18 based on the same seized materials, instead treating the alleged receipt as a cash loan (proposing penalty u/s 271D) The present addition of repayment as "unexplained money" is therefore contradictory and inconsistent with the Department's own earlier stand.

7. The order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC dated 11.09.2025 is bad in law and void ab initio as it has been passed ex parte without adjudicating on merits despite detailed grounds and statement of facts on record, violating section 250(6) of the Act which mandates a speaking order on each ground of appeal

Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves for to add, alter amend, modify, delete any or all grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of natural justice.”

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has furnished return of income u/s 139(4) of the IT Act on 31.03.2021 declaring total income of Rs.30,89,600/-. On the basis of information that the assessee has repaid cash loan of Rs.25 lakhs to one Yogesh M. Malpani the case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee after following due procedure. The assessee in response to above notice furnished return of income disclosing same income of Rs.30,89,600/- which was disclosed by him in the original return of income. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) and show cause notice respectively were issued to the assessee. Not being completely satisfied with the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the IT Act and vide order dated 25.03.2025 determined income at Rs.55,89,600/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.30,89,600/-. The above assessed income includes addition on account of on money payment of Rs.25,00,000/- u/s 69A of the IT Act.

4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. We further find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has issued last three notices of hearing to the assessee in a time period of 21 days which cannot be said to be reasonable opportunity of hearing. We also find that the assessee sought adjournment on two occasions which proves that the assessee was responding to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however due to issue of back-to-back three notices of hearing in a short span of 21 days the assessee could not furnish any reply.