Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumar
order : April 23, 2024 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 27.07.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal:
1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing an ex-parte order without providing any reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Assessment year: 2017-18 Md. Neyaz Hasan
For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.6,70,48,551/- made by the A.O. u/s 69A as unexplained money and wrongly applying the provision of section 115BBE thereon.
Without Prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have applied a reasonable percentage of G.P. on the credits in the bank a/c which were nothing but realization of sale proceeds. 4. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal
or alter the grounds at the time of hearing.”
3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned assessment order as well as the order of the CIT(A) to submit that the orders of both the lower authorities are ex parte orders. A separate affidavit has also been filed, wherein, it has been stated that the assessee is a non-return filer and do not know the nitty gritty of Income Tax proceedings. That no notice of hearing has ever been served upon the assessee by any of the lower authorities through physical mode. That the notices were served either through email or were uploaded on Income Tax portal which were not accessed to by the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that in this case the additions have been made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposits during demonetization period. The ld. Counsel inviting our attention to the impugned assessment order has submitted that while making the additions, the Assessing Officer has also added the amount relating to the other credit entries apart from the cash deposits. The ld. Counsel has further submitted that the assessee is a small businessman and the entire deposits out of were business receipts of the assessee. That the assessee has fair case on merits. He has further submitted that exaggerated additions have been made by the Assessing Officer and further confirmed by the CIT(A) in respective ex parte orders as the assessee, out of ignorance and being not aware of the date of hearings, could not file the necessary submissions and Assessment year: 2017-18 Md. Neyaz Hasan