TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of appeal are as under: - "(1) ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal solely for non-prosecution, without adjudicating on merits or considering the detailed grounds and facts already on record, and without allowing effective opportunity of hearing, contrary to the principles of natural justice. (2) in any case, it is a law well settled that any ex-parte order passed without deciding the merits of the objections raised and evidence already on record, is invalid and liable to be quashed. (3) proceedings under section 147 have neither been validly initiated nor concluded in accordance with the provisions of law, which has the effect of rendering the assessment order dated 13.02.2025 as a whole....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A) failed to consider the appellant's business history, audited books, withdrawals/recycling through the bank account. and (9) the authorities below erred in law and on facts in not considering that, at best, only 'peak credit could be added, if at all, and not the entire deposits. (10) the orders ignore the established business of the appellant and accepted returns of past years, making the addition completely arbitrary and erroneous. (11) the order appealed against, is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice." 2. The facts of the case are that the ld. Assessing Officer upon receiving information that the assessee had not filed a return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18, observed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee filed copies of his purchase register and sales register. However, the ld. Assessing Officer noted that he did not furnish any evidences such purchase bills, addresses/email/PAN/ledger account of the parties from whom purchases had been made, proof of payment against purchases etc., so as to establish that he was indeed involved in the business of sale and purchases of sarees. He could only provide the names of the persons from whom the purchases had been made. The AO thereafter issued a notice under section 133(6) to Punjab National Bank and Bank of Baroda to obtain the bank statements. After obtaining the same, he found that the total credits to these bank accounts stood at Rs. 1,34,14,491/-. The ld. AO came to the conclusion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the entire credits of Rs. 1,34,14,491/- was nothing but the unaccounted and unexplained money of the assessee which was liable to be added back under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, he made the said addition and brought it to tax under section 69A r.w.s. 115 BBE of the Income Tax Act. 3. Aggrieved with the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. The ld. CIT(A) records the fact that he issued five opportunities to the assessee to substantiate his grounds of appeal and also detailed the various email IDs to which these notices had been sent. However, he notes that the assessee did not make any compliance to the notices under section 250. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) came to the conclusi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed did not exhibit any address PAN or VAT/GST number. Thus, there was absolutely no proof of the assessee carrying out a business and the same was a ruse to cover up the unexplained deposit of cash. He, therefore, prayed that the orders may be confirmed. 6. We have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by both the parties. We noticed that before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had submitted that in the concerned assessment year, the assessee had not filed its return of income because he was under a bonafide belief that since his total income was well below the threshold limit of basic exemption, he was not required to file any return. However, he had been maintaining books of accounts and other r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lation of the decision of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Satish Kumar vs. PCIT (2023) 459 ITR 67 (Jharkhand HC). Furthermore, the ld. Assessing Officer had not provided the assessee with a draft assessment order, which was mandated under section 144B(1)(XXI) and was also in violation of the CBDT Notification SO 741(E)(NO6 /2021/F No.370149/154/2019-TPL and the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gandhi Reality (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. Asstt./Jt./Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (2022) 441 ITR 316. Assessee has further alleged that the assessment order is vitiated as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Central India Industries reported in (1971) 82 ITR 555. On the merits of t....