MANOJ DAYACHAND JAIN HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

It emerges from the outset during the course of hearing that the NAFC, the lower appellate ex-parte discussion; affirming the Assessing Office’s action making section 69A unexplained money addition of Rs. 87,49,400/-, has not effectively complied with the rigor of section 250(6) requiring framing of points of determination followed by detailed adjudication thereupon.

Learned DR vehemently argued that the assessee had not filed any explanation in Assessing Officer’s section 154 assessment framed on 26.4.2019. She could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the impugned lower appellate finding herein in paragraph 7.1 involves instance(s) of a prima facie communication gap between the assessee, his counsel’s end as all the notices herein remained un-complied with. Be that as it may, the fact remains that it is a fit case wherein the assessee deserves one more efficient inning before the learned CIT(A) in the foregoing backdrop. We order accordingly subject to the rider it shall be assessee’s risk and responsibility to plead and prove all relevant facts; by way of supportive evidence or additional evidence; as the case may be, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th July, 2024.