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

That the Ld CIT(A), NFAC erred on facts and in law in not considering that the assessee has committed suicide on 15.03,2024 and thus, the compliance in appellant proceedings could not be done.

That the Order of Ld. C.I. T. (A), NFAC is invalid as it is passed on dead person as the Assessee Pawan Kumar Kasaudhan was expired on 15.03.2024.

That the authorities below being Ld. ITO, Sultanpur, erred on facts and in law in initiating proceeding u/s 148 of I. T. Act solely on the basis of incorrect information 'flagged as high risk information on Insight Portal 'w.r.t total credits in three bank accounts Rs. 13,83,72,357/- without making his own enquiry and applying his own mind for verification, hence the initiation of proceeding is invalid and subsequent assessment order is void-ab-initio.

The Ld AO erred in reopening the assessment by merely comparing the incorrect credit in bank account as reported in insight portal with the total sales/turnover declared in the Audited Balance Sheet filed along with the return u/s 139 on mere suspicion and fallacious assumption. Further, without forming belief that how the difference in credits in bank and sales/turnover constitute income which has escaped assessment and without considering that bank accounts has been duly disclosed in the ITR filed u/s 139 of the Act and the credits therein have been taken as turnover.

That the authorities below erred on facts and in law in not considering that correct credit in Axis Bank A/C no. 912020024074818 is Rs.10,67,92,184/- during the year as

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.

During the course of hearing before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it was noticed that the assessee has raised as many as ten grounds of appeal. However, ground No. 4 to 10 are argumentative in nature and no legal issue is raised. Therefore, ground no. 4 to 10 are rejected. Now the only issue which remains for adjudication is that the assessee was not provided reasonable opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A). On perusal of order of learned CIT(A), it is found that the learned CIT(A) did not pass speaking order on merits of the grounds of appeal raised before him and the Assessing Officer has also completed the assessment ex-parte qua the assessee. In view of these facts and circumstances, it was felt that the issue in dispute should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, with the direction to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

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.