NEHA GOENKA ,VILE PARLE WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE-34 (3) (2), BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI

From the assessment order, it is observed that the Ld. AO came to a conclusion that the appellant is not eligible to avail provisions of section 44AD of the I.T. Act, presumptive taxation because the records, fund flow and transaction flow carried out by appellant shows that he created a bogus sub-contract and tried to give a colour of genuineness. Finally, the entire gross receipts were taxed.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, an appeal was filed by the appellant before Ld. CIT(A). This first appellate authority gave four opportunities and since there is no response, the addition made by the Ld. AO was confirmed.

The appellant filed an appeal before ITAT with the above grounds. The Ld. AR of the appellant stated that the father of appellant was not well during the period of two months and filed evidence by way of medical records for the same. It was requested that he may be given one more opportunity to argue his case before Ld. CIT(A).

The Ld. DR opposed the plea of Ld. AR.

Heard both sides. Within a span of two months, 4 opportunities were given to appellant and since the appellant filed some evidence to show that his father is not well, the Bench decides to given one more opportunity to appellant before Ld. CIT(A). accordingly, the appeal is remitted to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

The appeal of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/09/2025.