, , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण इंदौर (cid:586)ायपीठ इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 709/Ind/2024 (AY: 2015-16) ITA No. 710/Ind/2024 (AY: 2015-16)

M/s Goutam Medicose, बनाम/ ITO, 140, MG Road, Dhar Vs.

Dhar (PAN: AAGFG0285R)

(Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Arvind Sanghvi, CA & AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

The captioned two appeals are filed by assessee. The details of appeals are as under:

(i) I.T.A. No. 709/ Ind/ 2024 is a quantum-appeal directed against order of first appeal dated 02.08.2024 passed by Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 13.03.2023 passed by Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2015-16.

(ii) I.T.A. No. 710/ Ind/ 2024 is a penalty-appeal directed against order of first appeal dated 02.08.2024 passed by same CIT(A) which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 18.09.2023 passed by same AO u/s

271(1)(c) of the Act for same AY 2015-16.

2. The background facts leading to these appeals are such that the assessee is a partnership firm. For AY 2015-16 under consideration, the assessee did not file any return. The AO, on the basis of information available, found that the assessee has made a cash deposit of Rs. 2,08,81,600/- in an account with Central Bank of India during the previous year 2014-15 relevant to AY 2015-16. Accordingly, the AO framed a view that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of assessee and issued notice dated 30.03.2022 u/s 148 to assessee to open assessee’s case u/s 147. The AO also issued subsequent notices u/s 142(1) from time to time, one such notice was also issued through speed-post, as per details mentioned in Para 2 of assessment-order. These notices remained uncompiled by assessee. Ultimately, the AO also issued show-cause notices u/s 144B with a proposal to make assessment u/s 144 with an addition of Rs. 2,08,81,600/- as unexplained income u/s 69A, these show-notices also remained un-complied. Finally, seeing the non- responsive attitude of assessee, the AO completed assessment to the best of his judgement vide assessment-order dated 13.03.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 assessing the cash deposits of Rs. 2,08,81,600/- as unexplained income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Simultaneously, the AO also initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) and ultimately imposed penalty of Rs. 70,97,656/- vide penalty-order dated 18.09.2023. Aggrieved by both orders i.e. assessment-order as well as penalty-order, the assessee filed two separate appeals before CIT(A) and contested but did not get any success.

Now, the assessee has come in next appeals before ITAT.

3. Since these appeals are inter-related, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity.

I.T.A. No. 709/Ind/2024:

4. The grounds raised in this appeal are as under:

“1. That the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 on 02.08.2024 confirming the orderpassed by Ld. AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144B on 13.03.2023 is bad in law and bad on facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances and in the law, the Ld. AO lacked jurisdiction to issue notices for reassessment and pass assessment order for an non-existing partnership firm which may please be held as bad in law and against the natural principal of justice and hence the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified inupholding suchillegalaction ofLd.AO.

3. On the facts and circumstances and in the law, that the application under rule 46A as additional evidences submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) but the CIT(A) has not considered and not adjudicated properly. The Ld. CIT (A) has not appreciating the fact that the cash so deposited has alread