TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Varanasi(hereinafter called " the tribunal") :- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,21,914/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained money/cash deposits u/s 69A of the Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,83,50,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained money/cash deposits u/s 69A of the Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,90,99,269/- made by the AO on account of unexplained trade payables. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1543,065/-[Rs. 17,45,610-2,02,545] (Confirmed) as reflected in 26AS. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itional evidences as the assessee never filed any reply/ explanation/ submissions/ evidences before the AO during assessment proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) admitted and accepted these additional evidences/replies/submissions/explanations as filed by the assessee for the first time before ld. CIT(A), and deleted as many as four additions completely and deleted the fifth addition substantially out of the aforesaid six additions, while only addition of Rs. 11,19,380/- was sustained by ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) did not call for remand report/comments from the AO on these evidences /replies/submissions/explanations filed by the assessee for the first time before ld. CIT(A), before granting substantial relief to the assessee, despite the fact that the assessee did not filed any reply/ submissions/ evidences/ explanations before the AO during assessment proceedings and an ex-parte assessment order was passed by the AO u/s 144. 5. The Revenue being aggrieved by appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) granting aforesaid substantial relief to the assessee has filed this second appeal with tribunal. The assessee has not filed an appeal challenging the addition of Rs. 11,19,380/- sustained by ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of Section 250(1) and 250(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are breached. The ld. CIT DR submitted that the submissions/evidences/ replies / explanations etc. filed by the assessee were accepted by learned CIT(A) without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to rebut the same as no remand report/comments from the AO on these submissions/evidences/ replies / explanations filed by the assessee were called by ld. CIT(A), and there is a breach of principle of natural justice because the AO is also one of the litigating party before ld. CIT(A) . The ld. CIT DR prayed for allowing the appeal of the Revenue. 5.2 The learned counsel for the assessee on the other hand admitted that notices issued by AO u/s 143(2), 142(1) as well SCN as mentioned in page 1-2 of assessment order were received by the accountant of the assessee which were sent by AO via email, but the said accountant left the assessee without bringing these notices to the knowledge of the assessee's Directors/management, and that is the reason why the assessee could not file any reply/submissions/explanations/evidences before the Assessing Officer. It was submitted by learned counsel for the assessee that the replie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), dated 21.09.2018 and 09.10.2018 to the assessee, which were claimed by AO to have been duly served on the assessee . But the assessee did not comply with said notices and no response/reply/submissions/evidences etc. were filed by assessee before the AO. Thereafter, the AO issued several notices u/s 142(1), dated 21.01.2019, 02.08.2019, 20.09.2019, 16.10.2019 and 23.11.2019 to the assessee, asking assessee to file details in support of income filed. The aforesaid notices u/s 142(1) were also claimed by the AO to have been duly served on the assessee. But again, the assessee did not comply with the aforesaid notices issued by AO u/s 142(1), and no response/reply/explanations/submissions/ evidences etc. were filed by the assessee before the AO in response to the queries raised by the AO. Thereafter, a detailed Show Cause Notice(SCN) was issued by AO on 08.12.2019 to the assessee, which was also claimed by the AO to have been duly served on the assessee. The assessee did not comply with aforesaid SCN also, as no reply/submissions/explanations/evidences etc. were filed by the assessee before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings . Since the assessment was getting time ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench, without filing any affidavit of Directors/management, is that the accountant of the assessee received all the aforesaid notices but failed to bring the said notices to the knowledge of Directors/management, and it is further claimed that said accountant now left the company, and even the name of the accountant is not given and also no affidavit of the said accountant is filed nor any affidavit from Directors/Management is filed. Under these facts and circumstances, this plea lack merit and is rejected. Proceeding further, the assessee has claimed to have filed evidences/explanations/ replies/ submissions etc. before learned CIT(A) for the first time during the course of appellate proceedings before ld. CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) admitted those evidences/ explanations/replies/ submissions etc. filed by the assessee for the first time before him during appellate proceedings and granted substantial relief to the assessee, but did not call for any remand report / comments from the Assessing Officer on these additional evidences/replies/submissions/explanations etc. which are filed by assessee for the first time before ld. CIT(A), which is clearly in breach of Rule 46A of the 1962....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee was selected for framing complete scrutiny assessment through CASS with reasons mainly "cash deposit during demonetization period" .The assessee did not co-operated before ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings as no reply/explanations/ submissions/evidences etc. were filed by the assessee before the AO during assessment proceedings despite sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard granted by the AO, and an ex-parte assessment order was passed by the AO u/s 144 to meet the limitation period as prescribed under the statute. It is a matter of record that very low percentage of returns of income are selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment .The 1961 Act is an code in itself and there are several provisions under the 1961 Act such as compliances of provisions of Section 37(1) of the Act to substantiate that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of the assessee, Section 68 dealing with cash credits, compliances of Section 69, 69A, 69B, 69C of the 1961 Act dealing with unexplained investments, unexplained money, unexplained expenditure etc., deducting of income-tax at source on payments made by tax-payers....