JAYESH ARVIND SAIYA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 30 (1) - 5 , MUMBAI

(Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jayesh Arvind Saiya ITO, Ward-30(1)-5, B-4, Satya Niwas No.1, Nadiad, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Wala Colony No. 2, S.V. Road, Vs. Complex, Bandra, Malad W), Maharashtra-400064. Mumbai-400051. PAN : BHBPS8731H Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : None Revenue / Respondent by : Shri G.J. Ninawe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.09.2024 : 06.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R

Per Padmavathy S, AM:

30. (1) 5, Mumbai and learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi, this appeal petition is filed on the following amongst other grounds of appeal, which it is prayed may be considered without prejudice to one another.

1. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) erred in dismissing appeal alleging no compliance to his notices despite your Appellant seeking adjournment on the portal.

2. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) erred in upholding action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of RS. 5,654,080 considering only deposits in the Federal Bank and Saraswat bank and completely ignoring the withdrawals 3. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) erred in upholding action of the Assessing Officer erred in making addition of RS 4.397,598, which were in fact the loan repayments (including interest) against amounts lent earlier from the same account, and the balance amount was attributable to grocery business of the Appellant.

4. Your Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, and/or delete any of the above grounds of appeal

at or before final disposal of appeal.”

2. The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of carrying out retail business of selling food-grains. The assessee did not file the return of income for the year under consideration. The Assessing officer (AO) issued a notice under section 142(1) calling on the assessee to furnish the return of income. However, the assessee did not furnish the return of income in response to the said notice. The AO on the basis of data analytics and information gathered during online verification by the Income Tax Department noticed that the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs. 18,96,816/- into the Bank A/c during demonetization period. The AO also noticed certain other credits amounting to Rs. 37,98,950/- in the bank account of the assessee. Since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued, the AO completed the assessment under section 144 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act by making a total addition of Rs. 56,54,080/-. Aggrieved, assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued various notices to the assessee and that the assessee did not respond. Therefore, the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order confirming the addition made by the AO.

3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We heard the ld. DR. Considering the fact that the assessee did not represent the case of merits before the lower authorities and has not responded to the notices issued, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice and fair play. Hence, the appeal is remitted back to the CIT(A) for a denovo consideration. The assessee is directed to furnish the relevant details as may be called for by the CIT(A) without seeking adjournments and co-operate with the appellate proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open court on 06-09-2024. Sd/- Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (PADMAVATHY S) Judicial Member Accountant Member *SK, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT BY ORDER,