VINOD KUMAR SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(5), NOIDA

ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

(A.Y.2014-15) 2. Because in the facts and on the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT-(A), Noida did not consider the legitimate cogent evidences placed on record by the Appellant/Assesee under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and further erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO as under: a. The Ld. CIT (A) did not consider the cogent evidences placed on record by the Appellant/Assessee; b. The Ld. CIT(A) pleased to follow the foot steps of the Ld. AO and pronounced the impugned order without considering the merits of the case as the impugned order clearly transpires that the Ld. CIT (A) has only adjudicated the issue relating to admission of the Additional Evidences placed on record without considering the facts and circumstances of the case which is without application of judicious mind; c. The Ld. CIT (A) further did not exercise its judicial powers to consider the legitimate and cogent evidences placed on record by the Appellant/Asseesee despite having plenary power vis a vis Ld. AO under the law to meet the ends of justice.

4. Because in the facts and on the circumstances of the case a bare perusal of the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act framed by the Ld. AO transpires that the Ld. AO did not apply her judicious mind as she has added Rs. 2,84,87,530.00 stated under column "31(b)" of the Form 3CD (Audit Report) which is shown under the column "Amount of Repayment" and the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO in the Impugned Order completely ignoring the legitimate cogent evidences placed on record against law.

5. Because in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) further failed to appreciate the settled law that where the preponderance of evidence indicates absence of culpability and complexity of the assessee/appellant it should not be harassed by the Revenue's insistence that it should prove the negative.

(A.Y.2014-15) 3. This appeal was filed by the assessee in 2018. As per records available on file the appeal was listed for hearing for the first time on 23.09.2021. Thereafter, the appeal was listed for hearing on 12 dates, including today. However, every time the same was adjourned either on the written request of assessee/assessee’s representative or none was present to represent the assessee. Today none appeared to represent the assessee nor any letter seeking adjournment has been received. It seems that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, we take up this appeal for adjudication with the assistance of ld. Department Representative and on the basis of documents already on record.