SUSHIL BALASAHEB GONDHALE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(2), PUNE

ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, lower authorities erred in passing ex-parte order and erred in deciding the issue only on the basis of material available with them, this action is being violative of principal of natural justice. Your appellant prays for granting opportunity of hearing before lower authorities.

Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal

, following grounds are also taken on merit:

2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT Appeal NFAC erred in rejecting the appellants appeal by not condoning the delay of 40 days which cause due to certain medical emergency your appellant prays for condoning the delay and adjudication of appeal on merit.

3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in estimating the profit at the rate of 4 percent on the total deposits made in bank account. Appellant prays for just and fair in the said addition.

4. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in addition of Rs. 32,52,000/- being cash deposited during demonetization period by invoking provisions of section 69A and accordingly Levying the tax under section 115BBE and surcharge.

5. Alternatively, it is submitted that the cash deposit is also on account of sale turnover therefore, at the most addition can made of fair value of Net profit on such turnover, your appellant prays accordingly. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves for to add, alter amend, modify, delete any or all grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing.”

3. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in liquor business. Income tax return for the period under consideration was not filed by the assessee. As per information available on income tax portal, the assessee was found to have deposited huge cash in his bank account during demonetisation period. In view of this fact, the AO issued statutory notices u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, but the assessee did not comply with any of such notices. The AO completed the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 IT Act by an order dated 28-11-2019 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.56,18,803/-, out of which Rs.32,52,000/- was unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act & Rs.23,66,803/- was business income.

4. Since the assessee remained absent in first appeal hearing, vide impugned order dated 29-12-2023 LD CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the asseseee & consequently confirmed the additions made by the AO.

5. Being aggrieved with the above ex-parte decision of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appellant is in appeal before us.

6. Ld. AR submitted before us that ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It was further submitted by ld. Counsel of the assessee that although it has been mentioned in the ex-parte appellate order that adequate opportunities were provided to the assessee, but no details of notices of hearing was mentioned in the ex-parte appellate order. It is, therefore, requested before the Bench to set aside the ex-parte order passed by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and further requested to provide