PAWAN KUMAR KASAUDHAN, L/H- POONAM GUPTA,SULTANPUR vs. ITO, SULTANPUR

That the authorities below erred on facts and in law in not verifying / examining the incorrect information of Insight Portal that credit in Axis bank account no. 914020013137065 Rs. 67,07,625/- pertains to Assessee without verifying that the said Bank Account belongs to Govind Traders of Mr. Govind Prasad, PAN - CKJPP9531L and has no concern with Assessee. Accordingly, Reason to believe and addition on this count is invalid as per Law.

That the authorities below erred on facts and in law in adding incorrect difference Rs.3,25,75,640/- being credit in Bank Account as per information from Insight Portal ind total sales /turnover shown by the Assessee, as undisclosed income without appreciating that the correct amount of credits in the Axis Bank Accounts was Rs. 10,69,97,950/- and Rs.2,05,766/- only and all credits in Bank Account are duly accounted for in the Audited books of Accounts and Return already filed u/s 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Further Bank Account Number 9140200131337065 does not belongs to the Assessee.

That the authorities below erred on facts and in law in not considering that no defects have been pointed out in the audited books of accounts. Thus without rejecting the Audited books of accounts u/s 145(3), the addition on account of difference in credit in bank accounts and sales/ turnover cannot be made as per Law, hence the present assessment is invalid.

The addition upheld are highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principal of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon by the authorities below.”

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed his return of income on 07/11/2017 declaring total income at Rs.5,09,040/-. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that the difference amount of Rs.3,25,75,640/- being difference between credit in Axis Bank account and sales/turnover was not disclosed in the return filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31/03/2021 but the assessee did not file return of income in pursuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) along with the questionnaire. During the course of reassessment proceedings the reason for reopening was also provided to the assessee. The Assessing Officer had issued two notices u/s 142(1) of the Act on 26/11/2021 and 02/01/2022. When no response was received from the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice u/s 144 of the Act on 10/02/2022. Though the notices were issued through e-mail as well as through speed post, however, no response was received from the assessee. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and made an addition of Rs.3,25,75,640/-. Being aggrieved with the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 26/06/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A). Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue expressed no objection if the issue in dispute is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law.

We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. In this case, the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) have passed ex-parte order qua the assessee. We are of the considered opinion, in view of provisions of section 250(6) of the I. T. Act, that learned CIT(A) had statutory duty to pass speaking order on merits of the various grounds of appeal raised before him. In further consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, since the Assessing Officer has completed

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.