SURESH KUMAR GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 29-07-2022, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2019-20 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The order passed by the ld.CIT(A) )NFAC) Delhi is bad in law, wrong on the facts and against the principles of natural justice.

2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.s1,07,90,700/- on 2 SURESH KUMAR GOYAL VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR account of cash deposit to the income of the appellant on this count is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the addition.

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition made by the AO was on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act, 1961. But the ld. CIT(A) passed the order by confirming the addition on account of cash deposit on ex-parte basis is wrong, illegal, totally baseless and without the relevant provision of the law, the judicial pronouncements. So in these circumstances, it is requested that cost may be imposed on the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for passing such illegal and baseless order.

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) by passing an ex-parte order, without considering the adjournment request made by appellant and without in the hearing notice that this is the last opportunity provided to appellant. So, the order passed by ld.CIT(A) is bad in law, wrong on the facts and against the principles of natural justice.

5. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO has erred in law and facts in making addition on account of Rs.5,700/- on account of not allowing exempted income under the head business and profession, kindly allow the same.

6. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO has erred in law and facts by levying penalty u/s 234A, B and C on account of delay in filing return of income. Kindly delete the same.

2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without considering the adjournment request made by the assessee and without mentioning in the notice of hearing as to the last opportunity provided to the assessee for which the assessee is deprived off to contest the case before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC on merit. It is further 3 SURESH KUMAR GOYAL VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR prayed that the assessee may be provided one more chance to contest the case before the ld.CIT(A) on merit by submitting the relevant documents/evidence/ written submission concerning the case. 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A) and simultaneously objected to the prayer of the ld. of the assessee. 2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case it is observed that the assessee has sought six times adjournment, however, the assessee refrained from submitting response/ submission during the appellate proceedings. In the given circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) had no other option except to decide the appeal on merit based on the documents available before him i.e. grounds of appeal

, statement of facts and the assessment order. From the above narration, it is observed that the assessee could neither submit the written submission/ arguments concerning the case before the ld. CIT(A) nor made efforts to controvert the findings of the AO and it is also noted that it has escaped from the attention of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, to mention in the notice of hearing that it is the last opportunity for the assessee to contest the case. We feel in the interest of equity and justice that one more chance may be given to the assessee to substantiate its case before the ld. CIT(A) by submitting necessary evidence/ written submission etc. but the assessee will cooperate in the appellate proceedings and also will not demand further adjournment on frivolous 4 ITA NO. 367/JP/2022 SURESH KUMAR GOYAL VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR grounds. In this situation, we restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for afresh hearing but by providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose as per the directions mentioned hereinabove.

3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 13 /12/2022 Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 13/12/2022 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Shri Suresh Kumar Goyal,,Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 367/JP/2022) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत