ATUL U REGE HUF,MUMBAI vs. JURISDICTION CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in reopening the assessment which was made u/s 143(3) when the appellant had truly and fully disclosed all the material facts necessary for the purposes of original assessment.

6. Without prejudice to the above grounds and strictly in the alternative, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer of treating the loan amount of Rs. 1,35,99,286/- taken from M/s. Banas Finance Ltd and Rs.3,67,74,507/- from M/s. Confidence Finance and Trading Ltd totalling to Rs. 5,03,73,793/-as non-genuine.

7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that the assessing officer had failed to consider the substantial evidence adduced by the appellant to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditors and thus erred in treating the said loan transactions as unexplained cash credits u/s 68.

8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in not allowing the set off of assessed business loss of Rs.5,46,13,384.

9. Without prejudice to the above grounds and strictly in the alternative, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,35,99,286/- in case of loan from Banas Finance Ltd. instead of Rs. 1,14,58,597/-“

Atul U Rege HUF; A.Y.2012-13 3. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”), at the outset, submitted that the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The learned AR submitted that on 26/10/2023 the learned CIT(A) issued a notice directing the assessee to file written submissions on or before 02/11/2023 in support of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee along with the documentary evidence. In response thereto, the assessee filed an application seeking an adjournment to compile the details as required. It is submitted that however on 09/11/2023 the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

4. Having considered the submissions and perused the material available on record, it is evident that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex parte. Now in appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned AR and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the AO. During the hearing, the learned AR submitted that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee ex parte without granting an adjournment as sought by the assessee. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the assessee be granted one more opportunity to represent its case on merits before the learned CIT(A). Consequently, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the appeal on merits after consideration of all the details/submissions as Atul U Rege HUF; A.Y.2012-13 may be filed by the assessee. No order shall be passed without affording the reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all the dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.