GOPAL BHOLANATH BHARWAD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(1)(5), MUMBAI

Mr. Gopal Bholanath Bharwad for A.Y. 2017-18 against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] dated 31st January, 2024, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 25th December, 2019, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 32(1)(5), Mumbai, was partly allowed. The assessee was granted seven different opportunities by the learned CIT (A), which were not availed and therefore, the order of the learned Assessing Officer so far as the additions were confirmed.

Aggrieved assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee has also not furnished complete details before the learned Assessing Officer and before the learned CIT (A) also despite 7 opportunities assessee did not furnish the complete information. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the learned lower authorities.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. It is accepted fact that the assessee is engaged in sale of recharge voucher of various telecom companies. The assessee receives the sale consideration mostly in cash. This cash is deposited by the assessee in his bank account. From the bank account the assessee issues cheques to the various telecom companies. Therefore, to determine the total income of the assessee it is necessary to grant the deduction of sum paid to the telecom companies from the sale consideration. It is also clear that assessee has offered income of ₹7,64,570/-. It is true that assessee on many occasions did not furnish the complete information before the learned Assessing Officer and also before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). So far as the opportunities before the learned CIT (A) are concerned