GANESH SUDHAKAR SURYAWANSHI,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 01.09.2023 passed by CIT(A) [‘NFAC’] for the assessment year 2017-18.

The ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that all the cash deposits in to bank accounts are out of business transaction only to make payments to the suppliers and the source of business is substantiated by filing regular income tax return for other years.

Without Prejudice to the above, the ld CIT(A) failed to accept that out of total cash deposits of Rs 1,09,18,500/-, an amount of Rs.33,15,000/- was considered twice and hence needs to be reduced from total cash deposits. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any one or more of the grounds of appeal

In appeal, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the order of the AO.

Being aggrieved by the decision of the CIT(A)/NFAC, the appellant is in appeal before us.

We have heard the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the material available on record. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is only 10th pass and was not well conversant with the technology for which he was unable to see the notices sent by mail to him. Therefore, for the purposes of income tax hearing notices etc., he was totally dependent on the tax consultant who failed in his duty. She accordingly requested for one more opportunity to submit relevant documents & explanations before the AO.

The DR on the other hand submitted that several opportunities were given by the AO to submit the reply but assessee remained absent. He accordingly submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be confirmed.

After hearing both the sides, we find the appellant did not appear before the AO despite several opportunities granted by the AO for which he passed the order exparte. The email id of the tax consultant was mentioned on the portal. It is true that the notices were sent on the email id of the consultant who at that point of time has left the work of the assessee due to some dispute with the assessee, and therefore the consultant did not inform the assessee about the notices of hearing. We, therefore, find merit in the explanation of the ld. counsel for the assessee that there was no malafide intention in not appearing before the AO. We find during the course of proceedings before the CIT(A)/NFAC a written submission was furnished, wherein apart from other submissions, it was also contended that an amount of Rs.33,15,000/- was considered twice by the AO, but the CIT(A)/NFAC was not convinced with the arguments of the appellant and accordingly confirmed the addition. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of AO with the direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by filing requisite details. The AO 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 submit the details before the AO on the appointed day without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the AO is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold & direct accordingly. The appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.