MANOJ ISHWAR CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 24(2), MUMBAI

ITA No.102/Mum/2024 is filed by Manoj Ishwar Choudhary (assessee / appellant) for A.Y. 2012-13, against the appellate order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] dated 24th November, 2023, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section 144 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), by the

The assessee is aggrieved with the appellate order has preferred this appeal raising following grounds of appeal:-

Under the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals was not justified in confirming the addition made by Assessing Officer only because Purchase deed of premises was not submitted.

Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals and Assessing Officer ought to have considered that Appellant’s Father, Mr. Ishwar Choudhary, expired due to COVID in 2021.

Under the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax Appeals and AO ought to have considered that Appellant's Mother, Mrs. Poonam Choudhary, was diagnosed with Brain Hemorrhage in 2022.

Under the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax Appeals

Under the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax Appeals and AO ought to have considered that Appellant's Accountant, Mr. Devu Poojari, expired in 2022

Under the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax Appeals and AO ought to have considered that the Office Premises formed part of block of assets and even after sale of office premises, the block of assets had balance of Rs 78,76,312 on 31-3-12.

Under the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax Appeals was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Depreciation of Rs 4,43,635/- claimed on block of Office Premises.”

Brief facts of the case shows that assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading in plastic gift and articles as proprietor of Jwel products. The assessee filed his return of income on 29th September, 2012, at a total income of ₹23,98,854/-. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Subsequently, the case was reopened by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 29th March, 2016, for the reason that an information was received through the sale

The assessee filed the appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). As per Para no.14 of the appellate order, six notices were issued for hearing. Assessee responded with adjournment request once and but filed one written submission Therefore, based on the statement of fact filed before him and submissions, the learned CIT (A) held that the assessee has not brought on record purchase deed to prove the fact that block of the assets is continuing to exits, he sustained the order of the learned Assessing Officer.

Assessee is aggrieved preferred the appeal before us. Despite notice, none appeared before us on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the issue is decided as per information available on record. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.

We have carefully considered the contentions of the lower authorities and facts laid down before them incorporated in the assessment and appellate orders. The ground no.3 - 6 of the appeal the appeal shows that assessee has lost is father, mother, Younger brother and his accountant during this period and therefore, assessee could not reply the notices of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We find that the hearings were fixed on 26th February, 2021 to 26th July, 2023, i.e. on six occasions.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions.