MANUBHAI HAMIRBHAI DODIYA,BOTAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(10), BHAVNAGAR

O R D E R 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 14.12.2023 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal

taken by the assessee are as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 11,57,000/- on account of alleged cash deposited in bank account treated as alleged unexplained money u/s.69A.rws. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has not offered adequate opportunities to hear the case and passed ex- parte order and hence the case may please be set aside and restored back to the CIT(A) or AO. Manubhai Hamirbhai Dodiya Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2–

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty u/s.274 rws. 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper.”

3. On going through the records before me, it is found that the assessee has failed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer which led to passing of Assessing Order u/s 144 of the Act. Further, it is also found that the assessee has absolutely failed to respond to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A).

4. Before me, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that given an opportunity, due compliance would be made before the Assessing Officer wherein the primary default has occurred. For the proposed levy of cost of Rs.10,000/-, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the cost proposed may be reduced to Rs.5,000/- which is found to be justifiable. The assessee shall deposit the same amount in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund and produce the receipt of the same before the ld. CIT(A) who would initiate the appellate proceedings afresh and complete the proceedings after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.