DILIP BHIKHUBHAI CHAUHAN,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(2), SURAT

Assessee represented by Shri Bipin Jariwala, A.R. Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Appeal instituted on 24/07/2023 Date of hearing 28/11/2023 Date of pronouncement 28 /11/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 28/06/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. In the appeal the assessee has challenged the additions of Rs. 15,91,000/- on account of cash deposits in bank, Rs. 5,86,178/- on account of sundry creditors and Rs. 34,164/- on account of undisclosed interest income.

2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in ex parte order by passing non-speaking order. The ld. AR of the assessee submits Dilip Bhikhubahi Chauhan Vs ITO that though the assessee was not allowed adequate opportunity before passing the impugned order. The assessee is interested in contesting the case on merit. The assessee may be given one more opportunity to contest the case on merit. The ld AR for the assessee submits that he undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future in making proper responses to the notices issued by lower authorities. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that even the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), therefore, the matter may be restored to the file of Assessing Officer with liberty to the assessee to furnish required details and submissions.

3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue opposed the plea of ld. AR of the assessee and submits that the assessee is a habitual defaulter in making proper compliance and showing disregard to the various notices issued by the lower authorities. The assessee does not deserve any leniency.

4. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record carefully. I find that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 15,91,000/- on account of cash deposits in bank, Rs. 5,86,178/- on account of sundry creditors and Rs. 34,164/- on account of undisclosed interest income. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order, recorded that the assessee has not made compliance despite of