AISHWARYA AFRICAWALA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD2(2)(1), SURAT

Appellant represented by Shri Suchek Anchalia, CA Respondent represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 05/01/2023 Date of pronouncement 05/01/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (in short, the NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 29/09/2022 for the Assessment years (AY) 2017-18.

2. At the outset of hearing, Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submits that Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned ex parte order without giving fair and reasonable opportunities of hearing to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) in para-4 of impugned order has recorded that despite giving final opportunity no compliance was made on the part of assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) finally dismissed the appeal of assessee by Aishwarya Africawala AY -2017- taking view that he do not see any reason to differ with the assessing officer. The ld AR for the assessee submits that no notice was served on the assessee through email provided in Form-35 (Appeal form before ld CIT-A). The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that even the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 20.65 lakhs and brought the entire addition under the taxability of section 115BBE. The ld AR for the assessee submits that he has filed additional evidence to substantiate various bank deposits. Such evidences have direct bearing on the additions made by the assessing officer and same may be admitted. Both the lower authorities have not given fair and reasonable opportunities of hearing to the assessee. The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that matter either may be adjudicate on the basis of evidences furnished by the assessee or in alternative may be restored back to the file of Ld. Assessing officer for adjudicating all the issue afresh in accordance with law.

3. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A) and would submits that the assessing officer as well as ld CIT(A) granted sufficient opportunity to the assessee. The assessee failed to availed such opportunity and now taking plea that sufficient opportunity was not given to him. The assessee has no regards to the public authorities. In absence of written submission of any evidence the