SHRI. GOPAL LOKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 10.08.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the AY 2015-16 on the following grounds:-

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)erred in law and on facts in not providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant before deciding the appeal.

That the additions made in the assessment order and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are perverse as there is no specific finding in the order u/s 250 of the Act and it is mere reproduction of the assessment order. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs. 22,46,053 as unexplained cash credits without considering the cash withdrawals by the appellant from his bank accounts as sources. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,05,60,969 towards unsecured loans on the ground that the same has not been explained. 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,05,60,969 towards unsecured loans even though the appellant has proved the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. 7. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not considering the fact that some of them are cash loans and the addition leads to double addition as the cash deposits has already been considered as income. 8. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 3,25,000 holding that the same cannot be considered as agricultural income. 9. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,00,000 as gift from the father even though no gift has been received by the appellant.

The ld. AR submitted that the ld. FAA has not given proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and documents furnished by the assessee have also not been appreciated properly by both the revenue authorities. The ld. AR filed paperbook containing pages 1 to 102 and submitted that pages 1 to 21 were filed before the lower authorities. He requested that if a chance is given to the assessee, he undertook to respond to the notices and substantiate the case of the assessee with evidence before the lower authorities.

The ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and objected to sending back the matter to lower authorities. He submitted that the assessee had ample chances to prove the source of amounts received and he was unable to establish to the satisfaction of the AO.

Considering the rival submissions, we note that the AO assessed income at Rs.1,58,39,732 under different heads as discussed in the assessment order. The assessee has filed documents during the course of proceedings which are not appreciated properly by both the revenue authorities. Therefore, considering the prayer of the assessee and in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration and decision as per law. The assessee is directed to file necessary documents that would be essential and required for substantiating his case and for proper adjudication by the revenue authorities. Needless to say that reasonable opportunity of being heard be given to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and not seek unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case.

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