PRAFUL RAMESHBHAI AMIPARA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- Delay Condoned. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.5,59,000/- on account of alleged disallowance of credit card payment made via cash during the year and added to income u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Praful Rameshbhai Amipara Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2023-24 - 2– Rs.2,60,000/- on account of alleged disallowance of deduction claimed during the year and added back to Income.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed ex-parte order and hence, the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty proceeding u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty proceeding u/s.270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the assessee was afforded several opportunities to furnish details, clarifications, and explanations in support of his claims with regard to credit card payments of Rs. 5,59,000/- and deductions claimed amounting to Rs.2,60,000/-; however, the assessee failed to provide complete and satisfactory details before the lower authorities. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, based on the material available on record, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer.

4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, given an opportunity, the assessee would produce all necessary documents / explanations /details before the authorities to substantiate his claim. Considering the above facts and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the view that the matter requires proper verification at the end of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Praful Rameshbhai Amipara Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2023-24 - 3– Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and necessary verification of the issues involved. The Assessing Officer shall verify all relevant details / bank statements and supporting evidences furnished by the assessee, and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.