ROHITKUMAR CHINULAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

(Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rohitkumar Chinulal Shah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/o. M S Chhajed & Co. CA, Ward-2(1)(2), “Kamal Shanti”, Nr. Sardar Patel Ahmedabad Statue, Ahmedabad-380014 [PAN No.ALXPS4833P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.R. Respondent by: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. D.R. 17.12.2024 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 18.12.2024 O R D E R

PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:

“1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against law, equity & justice.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in upholding validity of re-opening of assessment as order u/s 127 of the Act was not passed to transfer the jurisdiction to Ld. AO.

Rohitkumar Chinulal Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2– 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in upholding the fact of addition made by Ld. AO by invoking section 69A of the Act for amount deposited in Bank. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in upholding addition of Rs. 39,27,695/- U/s 69A of the Act. 7. Appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final hearing.”

3. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 65 days in filing of the present appeal. The assessee has filed an Affidavit in which he has stated that though the Ld. CIT(A) passed an order on 25.06.2024. The assessee inadvertently failed to notice the passing of above order by Ld. CIT(A). The assessee noted that order had been passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals), only upon receiving the show cause notice u/s 271AAC(1) on 16.09.2024, and it is then that the assessee noticed on the IBTA portal that the CIT(A) had already passed the order. Consequently, there was an inadvertent delay in filing the present appeal. The assessee submitted that the order was passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals) on ex-parte basis and that the assessee has a good case on merits and there was a bona fide reason for the present delay in filing of appeal. Looking into the contents of Affidavit filed by the assessee, we are hereby condoning the delay of 65 days in filing of the present appeal.

4. On merits, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the present case pertains to certain additions made to the income of the assessee on account of cash deposits during the demonetization period. During assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished various details which were omitted to be considered by the Assessing Officer. While making the addition, no benefit of cash withdrawals from the bank account was also given to the assessee. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) passed ex-parte order, against the principles of natural justice, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee has a good case on merits and would be able to produce necessary evidence if given an opportunity of hearing.