DHARMENDRASINH MANHARSINH CHUDASAMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

(Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dharmendrasinh Manharsinh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chudasama, Ward-1(2), 28 1, Dholera Ambli Ambli, Bhavnagar. Dhandhuka, Amedabad-382463. [PAN No.AVXPC0294L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Jamin Shah, AR Respondent by: Shri B. P Srivastava, Sr. DR 27.11.2024 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 05.12.2024 O R D E R PER:DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT:

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, vide order dated 20.06.2024 passed for the Assessment Year 2021-22.

1. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred both in law and on facts while sustaining the addition made by Ld. A.O. u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs. 99,52,500/-, and therefore it requires to be deleted.

Dharmendrasinh M Chudasama vs. ITO Asst.Year –2021-22 - 2– 02. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the legal ground taken by the appellant and addition made u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by ITO was sustain the him is bad in law illegal and illegal.

05. That the addition made u/s 69 for Rs. 99,52,500/- of the I.T. Act, 1961 without issue of show cause notice is bad in law, illegal invalid, therefore the assessment order itself is bad in law and as such it require to be quashed.

06. That the appellant has provided all the details like PAN Number, Copy of ITR. Confirmation and Bank statement etc. of unsecured loans while their submission dated 15/05/2024 and 30/05/2024, however without considering the same CIT(A) has given adverse finding is against the principal of natural justice and against the facts on record. Therefore the heavy addition sustained by the CIT(A) u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for Rs. 99,52,500/- requires to be deleted.

07. That the appellant has not made any default as mentioned u/s 115BE or U/s 271AAC of the I.T.Act, 1961, However the penalty proceedings initiated by ITO and sustained by the CIT(A) is requires to be dropped.

08. That the appellant has neither committed default of Sec. 210 nor made any default in payment of advance tax and therefore unwanted interest charged u/s 234A 234B, 234C and 234D requires to be deleted.

09. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, deleted or alter any of the grounds till the appeal is finally heard and decided.

3. The assessee filed his return of income on 31.12.2021, declaring total income of Rs.1,35,200/- and exempt income of Rs.52,30,000/-. The order has been passed u/s.144B of the Act owing to non compliance of the assessee before the Assessing Officer to all the six notices issued, complying only to the last show-cause notice which ultimately culminated in completion of assessment determining total income at Rs.1,00,91,700/- Dharmendrasinh M Chudasama vs. ITO Asst.Year –2021-22 - 3– 4. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the assessee owing to absence of details of the lenders and the source of investment.

5. Before us the assessee submitted that, given an opportunity, all the details with regard to the loan parties would be provided to the revenue authorities which they have collected by now. Having gone through the fact, we hold that the no prejudice will be caused to the revenue if the Assessing Officer is allowed to examine the details of the loan parties. Hence, the matter is referred to the Assessing Officer to examine the details and take decision as per the provision of the act..

Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. BRR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 05 .12.2024 Manish, Sr. PS RUE COPY आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,