SUNI DAVIS THAKOLKKARAN,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(6), SURAT, SURAT

िनधा�रती की ओर से /Assessee by None राज� की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal instituted on 09.08.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing 29.12.2023 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date of 29.12.2023 pronouncement Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short to as ‘NFAC/Ld. PCIT’] dated 14.06.2023 for assessment year 2011-12, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 143(1) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 30.11.2018. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the appellate order ex pare without affording the opportunity of hearing. It is therefore prayed that the appellate order passed by ethe CIT(A) be quashed on the ground of principles of natural justice and fairness.

(A.Y 11-12) Suni Davis Thakolkkaran

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld.AO of making addition to the tune of Rs.88,66,961/- on the ground of unexplained credits in bank account of the appellant. 4. Your appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend or delete any or all the grounds of appeal

stated above.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual filed his return of income for assessment year 2011-12 declaring income of Rs.2.40 lakh. Subsequently return of assessee was processed on 31.03.2012 and accepted. Thereafter, the case was re-opened on the basis of information of DDIT(Inv.), Surat that assessee maintained bank account in Citi Bank, Ghod Dod Branch, Surat and carried out transaction in the name of M/s Litty Hire Co. On the basis of such information, the Assessing Officer was of the view that assessee was indulging in regular transaction in his bank account and not disclosed such income, in his returned income. The assessee disclosed income from “salary” and “house property” in his returned income. Notice under section 131 was issued upon the assessee on 14.12.2017, which was not responded by assessee. The Assessing Officer after recording reasons that income of assessee to the extent of credit in the bank account at Rs.88,66,961/- has escaped assessment. Further Notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee. The assessee in response filed return of income on 09.05.2018 declaring same income as declared initially. The Assessing Officer proceeded for re- 2 (A.Y 11-12) Suni Davis Thakolkkaran assessment. The assessing officer in para-8 of assessment order recorded that six notices were served to the assessee to furnish details to substantiate the transaction in his bank account. The Assessing Officer noted that despite giving sufficient opportunities, the assessee neither field any reply nor shown any reasonable and sufficient explanation about such transaction in his bank account. The Assessing Officer thereby added entire credit entries of Rs.88,66,961/- in the income of assessee in assessment order dated 30.11.2018. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A). The appeal of assessee migrated before NFAC/Ld.CIT(A). Before NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) again assessee has not filed any response despite granting four opportunities to the assessee. The NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) on the basis of materials available on record and considering facts of the case upheld the validity of re-opening as well as addition on merit, by its speaking order.