MR. KAMALCHAND ASHOK MEHTA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORP. CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

O R D E R

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

4. We note that the assessee is an individual filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.13,19,060/-. Under scrutiny, the AO determined the income of the assessee, inter alia, making addition of Rs.17,10,000/- on account of unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act. Having aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, but, for non-compliance of notices, the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, passed ex-parte order by placing reliance in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd, reported in 38 ITD 320(Delhi). The ld.AR Shri D.Anand submits that the assessee is ready to prosecute his case before the CIT(A) and prayed to remand the matter to the file of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for fresh consideration. The ld.DR Shri P.Sajit Kumar, vehemently opposed and submits that the NFAC, Delhi has given ample opportunity to the assessee, but the assessee did not avail the said opportunities. The ld. DR drew attention to the para 4-7 of the impugned order and prayed to dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee. On perusal of the record, the AO made above addition u/s 69A on account of unexplained investment and admittedly there was no compliance by the assessee before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which is clear from para no.6 of the impugned order. Further, we note that the NFAC, Delhi without discussing the merits of the case as required under sub-section(6) of section 250 of the Act, dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee for non prosecution. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for fresh consideration. The assessee is at liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of his contention. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on 8th May, 2024 at Chennai.