PARTH SINGH PUNDIR,DEHRADUN vs. CIT APPEAL, DEHRADUN

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 30/08/2023 for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed its Return of Income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.7,44,410/- and agriculture income of Rs. 2,00,000/- later filed revised return on 05.11.2017. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) &142(1) of the Act were issued to the Assessee. The AO completed the assessment through order u/s 143(3)of the Act dated 19.12.2019, assessing total income at Rs.1,18,75,318/- by adding : i)Rs.1,10,48,000/- on account of the un explained cash deposits in the bank accounts during the demonetization u/s.69A of the IT Act, 1961. ii) Rs. 82,908/- on account of disallowance of 20% of the expenses claimed under the head freight and cartage.

Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 19/12/2019, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 30/08/2023, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 30/08/2023, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal.

Though the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee are argumentative in nature, addressing on the grounds of appeal of the Assessee, the Assessee submitted that the lower authorities have not taken into consideration of the documents produced by the Assessee and the additions have been made which have been confirmed by the Assessee without providing proper opportunity to the Assessee and without verifying the material on record. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal.

Per contra, Ld. Department's Representative relying on the orders of the lower authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As could be seen from the order impugned, the additions have been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the Assessee has not provided complete cash book for the entire year as well as the previous year and no proper submissions have been made in support of both the additions. It is the specific case of the Assessee that the entire documents have been produced which have not been considered by the authorities below. In view of the above, we remand the entire issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo assessment in accordance with law and the Assessee is at liberty to produce all the documents in support of his claims and contentions. Accordingly, the issue involved in the present appeal is restored to the file of the A.O.

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.