VINODCHANDRA DAHYABHAI DARJI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

- 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 20.11.2023 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 20.11.2023 for A.Y.2017-18 by NFAC, Delhi upholding the addition of Rs.73,22,598 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. Vinodchandra Dahyabhai Darji Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2– 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 tax Act and thereby violated the principle of natural justice. 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 addition of Rs.31,52,098 being estimation of profit at 8%. 2.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld addition of Rs.31,52,098 by estimating the net profit at 8% of Rs.3,94,01,230 without considering the eccentric facts of the case. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and or on facts in upholding the application of Section 145(3). 2.4 That the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the rejection of books u/s 145(3) without establishment of any defect in the books. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.41,70,500 of Unsecured Loan u/s 68 being cash credit. 3.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld addition of Rs.41,70,500 of Unsecured loan. 3.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and or on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.41,70,500 being unsecured loans even when the books of accounts were rejected Section 145(3). 3.4 Without prejudice to the above grounds and in the alternative, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that when the books of accounts are rejected under section 145(3) than no addition or disallowance can be made pertaining to books of accounts. 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the invocation of provisions of Section 115BBE. 4.2 The Ld. CIT(A) as well as the AO ought to have directly trigger the provisions of Section 115BBE. 4.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that levy of section 115BBE is not automatic. The Appellant must be granted the specific opportunity before triggering the provisions of section 115BBE. Vinodchandra Dahyabhai Darji Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 3– 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not granting opportunity of being heard via video conferencing. 5.2 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. 5.3 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have granted opportunity of being heard via videoconferencing facility upon specific request by the appellant.”