BINDU SALESH VISWAMBHARAN,DOMBIVILI (E) vs. ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

2. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of cash deposit of Rs.77.94,000/- U/S.69A of the Income Tax Act, made by the AO without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

2 3 The Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of unsecured loans obtained by the assessee of Rs.68.05,000/- U/S.68 of Income Tax Act. 4 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the above Grounds of Appeal

, as the occasion may demand or circumstances may require. 5 The Appellant prays that the addition made is unjustified and hence the same is required to be deleted in the interest of justice and equity or in the alternative the assessment may please be restored back to the file of the Ld. A.O. for judicious determination of income.”

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed her return of income on 06-07-2017 declaring total income of Rs.13,42,260/-. The case of the appellant assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The AO issued notice u/s.143(2) of the Act & thereafter also issued notices u/s.142(1) of the Act. As per the AO, the appellant assessee did not furnish complete information as desired through above statutory notices. The AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.1,59,41,260/-, by making addition of Rs.77,94,000/- u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained money & of Rs.68,05,000/- u/s.68 of the Act as unexplained credit, respectively.

4. Since the assessee did not file any submission, Ld CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the additions made by the AO.

5. Aggrieved by the decision of the CIT(A)/NFAC the appellant is in appeal before us.

6. It was submitted before us that the conditions were beyond the control of the assessee as during the period 2018 to 2023 she was involved in filing & following up of civil & criminal cases against her ex partner for some forgery. It was also submitted before us that the CA neither attended the hearings before the AO nor attended the hearings before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC which resulted in huge demands & confirmation of the same by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The Ld AR accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to substantiate her case before the AO. 7. The DR on the other hand submitted that several opportunities were given by the AO but assessee did not furnish full details. Even before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee remained absent. The Ld. DR accordingly requested to confirm the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 8. We have heard learned counsels from both the sides & perused the material available on record. We find the appellant did not supply full information for which AO made the addition. Since 4 ITA No.1065/PUN/2023 the assessee also did not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, he dismissed the appeal. The submissions of Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that during the period 2018 to 2023 the assessee was following up civil & criminal cases against her Ex - partner & the new CA also did not attend the hearings either before the AO or before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for which these unfortunate events happened. Under these circumstances, we find merit in the explanation of the Ld. counsel for the assessee that there was no malafide intention in not appearing before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Considering the totality of the facts of the case & in the interest of justice we deem it proper to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee so that she can substantiate her case by furnishing relevant documents & explanations. Hence without going into the merits of the case we set-aside the impugned first appellate order & remand the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC shall decide the issue as per fact & law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to furnish relevant submission in support of her case before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC on the appointed