2024 (8) TMI 1616

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f appeal :- 1. For that Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order ignoring the fact that the Ld. AO's assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is a pure case of mere change of opinion when the original assessment u/s 143(3] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were already conducted for the year under appeal. 2. For that Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order ignoring the fact that the Ld. AO has failed to appreciate that the assessee's case was already proved on merits during the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. For that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming addition of Rs. 3,86,38,036/- on account of Unexplained money u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961contrary to law ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g into materials on record held that above stated difference in cash deposited in the account Rs. 3,86,38,036/- remained unexplained which was deemed to be assessee's income and added back to the total income of the assessee from his business profession u/s 69 of the Act 3. According to the ld. CIT(A),the appeal was posted for faceless hearing for the first time on 06.10.2023 u/s. 250 of the Act vide letter issued on 27.09.2023. There was no compliance to the said notice. Thereafter, the case was again fixed for hearing on 19.10.2023 and 30.10.2023 vide letters issued on 09.10.2023 and 20.10.2023 respectively. Again there was no response from the appellant. The case was finally fixed for hearing on 10.11.2023 vide letter dated 31.10.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re, not aware of the proceedings. There was no deliberate defiance of notices on part pf the assessee. The learned DR on the other hand, has supported the action of lower authorities 5. We have carefully considered the case. The ld. AO has claimed that despite several notices issued for allowing opportunity of hearing to the assessee during assessment proceedings, there was no compliance. The ld. CIT(A) has also held that there was no compliance from the assessee to explain his case even before him. However, it appears to us that there was no deliberate defiance on part of the assessee considering the past record emanating from his proper response made during the original assessment proceedings. Therefore, his contention of lack of aware....