ASHOK ONKARDAS BISSA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(4)(1),, MUMBAI

Ashok Onkardas Bissa, for A.Y. 2014-15, against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)], dated 12th October, 2023, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deciding the appeal ex- parte in view of the fact that no notice was received by the appellant for hearing of appeal.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal and confirming addition of Rs. 4,16,36,800 as unexplained cash credit under section. 68 of the IT, Act, 1961 ignoring the admitted fact on record and categorical finding of investigation wing of the department that the appellant was one of the entity in the chain to facilitate the accommodation entries for providing Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG). He ought to have directed to the ld. A.O. to assess the commission income at 0.25 percent of the total amount deposited in the bank account. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing appeal and

Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi, who disposed off the appeal vide order dated 12th October, 2023, for non prosecution. The assessee was issued notice on four occasions, which were not replied by the assessee. Therefore, the learned CIT (A) upheld the order of the learned Assessing Officer. 05. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the assessee preferred this appeal. Earlier this appeal was posted for hearing on 2nd July, 2024, wherein Mr. Ketan Vajani and associates on behalf of the assessee, it was adjourned today. Today also there was a request for adjournment. Ld AR was asked that it is complete non compliance before lower authorities and therefore it needs to be restored to the lower authorities only in terms of ground no 1 of the

Ld DR submits that assessee is claiming him to be an exit provider in case of one penny stock company Sunrise Asian Limited in which Mr. Vipul Vidhur Bhatt and his accomplices provided exit to several beneficiaries for earning bogus long term capital gain. Assessee has also named one Mr. Kamlesh Sanghvai who deposited cross bearer cheques in the account of the assessee for providing funds for pay out in stock exchange. He is not produced. Assessee has failed to produce any of other parties before ld AO and also did not represent before ld CIT (A). Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the order of the lower authorities.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of lower authorities. Assessee claimed that he is an exit provider in the scheme of providing long term capital gain to other beneficiaries in script operated of Sunrise Asian Limited by Mr. Vipul Vidhur Bhatt and his accomplices where in one Mr. kamlesh Sanghavi deposited cross bearer cheques in his account for making payout to stock exchanges when exit provided to beneficiaries. Before LD AO, assessee submitted affidavit to that extent, named various persons who deposited bank cross bearer cheques in his account. But ld AO adopted a short cut and without making proper inquiry made addition in the hands of the assessee, who claims himself to be merely conduit. It is surprising that the ld AO accepted that

In view of our decision in Ground no 1 of the appeal, all other ground son merit are not required to be adjudicated and hence those are left open.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.