SHIVAM ENTERPRISES,HARDA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 07.02.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for A.Y.2016-17. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the assessment order passed by Ld. AO which is contrary to ITANo.224/Ind/2024 Shivam Enterprises the material on records and provisions of the Act, unjust and bad in law.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not complying with the provisions of section 142(3) by not providing the information and documents gathered which formed the basis of inquiry and in the absence of an opportunity of being heard given to the assessee in respect such gathered material 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made u/s 69A rws 115BBE of Rs. 5,83,27,676 as undisclosed money arising out of unexplained receipt of income 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of the document seized during search operations carried out in the case of third person 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO erred in not providing opportunity of cross examination of the searched person 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the reassessment proceedings w/s 147 based on the material seized from search operations carried out at the premises

ITANo.224/Ind/2024 Shivam Enterprises of third person more particularly when specific provisions are laid down u/s 153C 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, 1,74,98,303 Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition made u/s 69A rws 115BBE of Rs. 5,83,27,676 as undisclosed money arising out of unexplained receipt of income without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or otherwise raise any other ground of appeal

.”

2. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- prosecution. She has pointed out that the CIT(A) has issued the notices to e-mail ID other than the e-mail ID given by the assesse in form

35. She has referred to the form no.35 and e-mail ID given by the assesse as well as the record taken from the e-filing portal of the department shown the notices issued by the CIT(A) were sent to different e-mail ID not given in the form 35 and therefore, these notices were not in the knowledge of the assessee and consequently there was no response to those notices. Thus, the ld. AR has pleaded that the impugned order of the CIT(A) be set aside and matter may be remanded to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication.

3.On the other hand, ld. DR has not raised any objection if the matter is remanded to the record of the AO and submitted that the AO has passed the best judgment assessment when the assesse failed to furnish any reply to the questionnaire issued by the AO as ITANo.224/Ind/2024 Shivam Enterprises well as supporting evidences as recorded in para 9.2 of the assessment order.

Order pronounced in the open court on conclusion of hearing on 31.07.2024.