DHANANJAYA TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(4), AHMEDABAD

These two appeals are filed by two different assesses against two separate orders dated 31.08.2023 & 25.10.2023 respectively passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

Since these two appeals are identical and, therefore, we are taking up firstly. The assessee, in this appeal, has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

The case of the assessee was reopened for scrutiny assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after getting the prior approval of the Authorities for the reasons recorded therein. The original return under Section 139(1) of the Act dated 28.09.2012 was filed by the assessee at a total income of Rs.3,38,990/-. The scrutiny assessment through CASS under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 26.02.2015 thereby determining total income at Rs.4,53,720/-. The reassessment & 898/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 for both Page 3 of 5 order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was passed on 26.12.2018 determining the income at Rs.17,92,210/-. At the time of reopening under Section 147 of the Act, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2019 and in response to the same, the assessee filed his return of income at Rs.3,38,993/-. Subsequently, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 03.10.2019 was issued. The assessee filed reply on 23.10.2019. Subsequently, all the statutory notices were issued and the assessee filed the detailed reply. The Assessing Officer, after taking cognisance of the replies and submissions alongwith details, made addition of Rs.2,89,10,240/- under Section 68 of the Act thereby observing that the said amount remains unexplained by the assessee. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.3,93,97,100/- regarding the cash deposits thereby observing that the same remained unexplained in the hands of the assessee.

Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 26.12.2019, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

The ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) without giving any opportunity of hearing has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and also has not taken into consideration the details of the submissions filed before the Assessing Officer as well as the grounds taken by the assessee before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A).

The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that on page no.33 & 34 of the order of the CIT(A), the CIT(A) has given only two notices for hearing before the CIT(A) but has not mentioned whether these notices were properly served to the assessee or not. The first notice was issued during the Covid Pandemic and the second notice was issued on 05.07.2023 and without giving any opportunity to the assessee passed the order on 31.08.2023 thereby passing ex-parte order without determining any merits of the case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues contested before & 898/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 for both Page 4 of 5 the CIT(A), after taking cognisance of the evidences as well as the details filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. Thus, is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes.