MRUGESHBHAI RAVINDRABHAI DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIR 2(1)(1) AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short), dated 28.06.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.

The Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:- “1.1 The order passed u/s. 250 on 28.06.2024 for A.Y.2017-18 by NFAC, Delhi upholding the disallowances of Rs.10,00,000/- made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the eccentric facts and evidence available with regard to the impugned additions. 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in not carrying out any inquiry with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Income Mrugeshbhai Ravindrabhai Desai Vs. DCIT Asst. Year :– 2017-18 - 2– tax Act and thereby violated the principle of natural justice. The appellant had specifically denied at the time of filing Form No.35 to receive the notices on Email, however, the CIT(A) has kept on sending the same on Emails rather than sending physically which could not be served to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant shall be granted opportunity to produce additional evidences. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and / or on facts in upholding the initiating proceedings u/s 147. 2.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the invoking of the provisions of section 147 without making any inquiry before the initiation. The AO has reopened the case in mechanical manner. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the reopening u/s.147 by the Ld. AO is nothing but a rowing and fishing inquiry which is not permitted under the Act. 2.4 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has erred in law and / or on facts in not providing the reasons recorded to form belief u/s147. 2.5 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that in absence of providing the valid reasons recorded to the appellant, the proceedings initiated & concluded u/s 147 deserves to be quashed. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the disallowance of donation of Rs.10,00,000 claimed u/s 35AC. 3.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the disallowance of donation of Rs. 10,00,000 claimed u/s 35AC. 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not granting opportunity of being heard via video conferencing. 4.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that granting opportunity of being heard via video conferencing facility is mandatory in the new regime of Faceless appeal process.”

Hence, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall provide the documents which are in the custody of the Department to the assessee and to pass the assessment order de novo after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.