TARUN SANTRAMDAS VARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

O R D E R

PER SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM:

Facts of the Case: 2. The assessee, an individual, filed his return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 01.01.2016, declaring a total income of Rs.3,30,16,670/- under the heads of salary, house property, capital gain, other sources, and agricultural income. As the assessee was not carrying on any business, no books of accounts were maintained.

2.1. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny, and a notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Circle 3(1)(1), on 19.09.2016. Subsequently, a notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 02.08.2017 was issued, calling for various information which was duly complied with by the assessee through his Authorized Representative from time to time.

2.2. During the course of assessment proceedings, based on the Annual Information Report (AIR) information, the assessee was asked to furnish details of cash deposited in the bank amounting to Rs.1,13,00,000/-. The assessee submitted the required details and documents to prove the source of cash deposited and explained the nature of the transactions to the Assessing Officer (AO). The cash deposits were primarily from agricultural income receipts and amounts received as advance per the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered with various persons who are agriculturists in the area for the sale of plots of land. Tarun Satramdas Varma vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2015-16 2.3. Upon the request of the AO to produce the specific persons, who had given the advance, the assessee produced them. These individuals confirmed that they were agriculturists with sufficient means and had advanced the amount to the assessee. Despite the submissions and documentary evidence submitted by the assessee, the AO made an addition of Rs.1,13,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act.

3. Aggrieved by the assessment order and the addition made, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Ahmedabad–8, which was heard and decided by the Ld.CIT(A) NFAC.

3.1. During the course of appellate proceedings, the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC issued multiple notices on 08.03.2019, 05.07.2019, 30.12.2020, and 07.07.2023 to the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal, concluding that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant which is in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

4. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed.

On the grounds of appeal: 3. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that, the assessee had made written submissions on 13.08.2019 and 29.08.2019 in response to the notice of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Ahmedabad–8 dated 05.07.2019 which the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC has not considered while dismissing the appeal.

4. We have noted the details of the submission made by the assessee and without going into the merit of the submission conclude that the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC passed the order without considering the submissions already made by the assessee. Tarun Satramdas Varma vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2015-16 4.1. In view of the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we hereby set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The matter is restored back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) to decide afresh, after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.