SADHANA RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 27-10-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2017-18 wherein the assessee has raised the following ground of appeal. ‘’1. That the AO erred in making an addition of Rs.31,01,590/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C.

2. That the order passed by the AO is bad in law as well as on facts.’’ 2 SADHANA RATHORE VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 & 2 of the assessee, it is noted that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- 6.0 The case is also examined on merits. In the instant case, the additions had been made towards unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. The AO has given many opportunities to the assessee to submit details and response to specific issues. The additions made are duly reasoned and discussed in the assessment order passed. No additional evidences had been furnished by the assessee which could have been considered in the appeal proceedings. In view of the above, no interference is called for on the additions made by the AO. Accordingly, the additions/ disallowances as challenge in the grounds of appeal and in the appeal memo are hereby confirmed. 7.0 Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant for the A.Y. 2017-18 is dismissed. ‘’ 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity of hearing by the authorities below and also prayed that one more chance may be provided to contest the case before the ld. CIT(A) in order to settle the issue in question. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR has objected to the prayer of the ld CIT(A) and also relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A)

3 SADHANA RATHORE VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noticed that the ld. CIT(A) had provided various opportunities to the assessee to advance his submission with a view to settling the dispute in question (supra) but the assessee was really lethargic and unserious in pursuing his case in spite of providing various opportunities by the ld. CIT(A). It is undisputed fact that the assessee was granted several opportunities by the ld. CIT(A) as mentioned in the ld.CIT(A)’s order to argue the case but the assessee remained non-cooperative and negligent in pursuing his case on the dates of hearing of the appeal for which the Bench awards cost of Rs.2,000/- and the same may be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and copy of the same shall be submitted to the ld. CIT (A) for proof and thus the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing, however, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 3.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

4 SADHANA RATHORE VS ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31 /01/2024.