ABDUL WAHAB IQBAL RESHAMWALA,SURAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT

Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat [for short to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 26.07.2022 for assessment year 2017-18, which in turn arises out assessment order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 28.12.2019. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in not admitting the appeal and dismissing the appeal for want (A.Y 17-18) Abdul Wahab Iqbal of proper prosecuting, and not passing a speaking order as required by section 250(6).

3. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, modify alter or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing.”

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-3.3 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 without adjudicating the various grounds of appeal as per mandate of Section 250(6) of the Act. The ld AR for the assessee submits that in response to the notice of ld CIT(A), the assessee attended the hearing before ld CIT(A) on 22.12.2021, however on certain issues which were raised by ld CIT(A), the submissions of assessee was not ready, so the assessee did not file his submissions. Again notice for hearing was issued for 25/07/2022, the AR for the assessee attended the hearing before ld CIT(A), however, the ld CIT(A) already passed ex- 2 (A.Y 17-18) Abdul Wahab Iqbal party order. The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that even the Assessing Officer passed assessment order without giving fair and reasonable opportunities of hearing the assessee and subsequently made addition by taking view that assessee failed to submit any explanation and evidence about the transaction in foreign exchange and made addition of Rs.23.19 lakh. The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that matter may be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the issue afresh in accordance with law.

3. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue submits that assessee was given ample opportunities as reflected by Ld. CIT(A) recorded in para-3 of his order. The ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that Ld. CIT(A) has left no option but to decide the issue raised by assessee on the basis of materials available on record since no corroborative materials placed on record by assessee the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer. In alternative submission, the ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue submits that in case the Hon’ble Tribunal is deem appropriate, the assessee be directed to be vigilant and not to default in attending the 3 (A.Y 17-18) Abdul Wahab Iqbal proceedings and to waste the time of public authorities/ld. CIT(A).

4. I have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record and the orders of lower authorities carefully. I find that during assessment stage, the Assessing Officer recorded that a survey action was conducted at the business premises of assessee. During the survey proceedings, various documents were impounded and seized. The assessee was asked to explain the entries recorded on various documents recovered during survey action. The summons of notice under section 131 of the Act was issued upon the assessee to explain the impounded materials. The Assessing Officer recorded that assessee failed to appreciate any explanation and Assessing Officer on the basis of images of such impounded documents recovered from the business premises of assessee took a view that on the face of images they look like transaction in foreign exchange as USD and TB are written on it which clearly shows the unaccounted receipts of assessee. The Assessing Officer thereby added such unaccounted receipt as income of assessee and taxed it under 4 (A.Y 17-18) Abdul Wahab Iqbal section 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved the addition made by Assessing Officer the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of Assessing Officer passed ex parte impugned order.

by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/12/2022.