MD HASNAIN ANSARI,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAMSHEDPUR

Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM : The above captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 29.07.2024, passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2018-2019. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual during the assessment year in question. It was noticed by the AO that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.31,43,49,325/- in his bank account, however, in the ITR turnover of the assessee was disclosed at Rs.21,23,61,311/-. Accordingly, the AO found that there was a difference of Rs.10,19,88,014/-. The Ld. AO requested the assessee to explain the explain the source of cash deposits of Rs.10,19,88,014/-. Accordingly the AO had made addition of Rs.10,19,88,014/- u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act and also initiated penalty proceeding u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act. During the penalty proceedings the assessee did not furnish any reply to the show cause notice issued by the AO ultimately the AO imposed penalty of Rs.78,78,574/- @10% u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act. Dissatisfied with the above appeal, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), however, the assessee failed to comply to the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) on the various date, ultimately the ld. CIT(A) on the basis of material available on record passed the order by upholding the order of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds, however, the primary contention of the assessee is that the impugned order passed by the ld.CIT(A) is bad in law and liable to be set aside as the assessee did not get an opportunity to submit the supported documents in order to substantiate its claim.