, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण विशाखापटणम पीठ म IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री रिीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एि ंश्री एस. बालकृष्णन, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.212/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2022-23)

The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Vikas Kumar Chhajer, Income Tax, Vizianagaram.

Circle – 3(1), PAN : ADGPV3250J Visakhapatnam.

(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : None Assessee Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR Department Represented by सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 01.07.2025 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : .07.2025 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R

प्रनत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.

The present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 10.02.2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short “A.O.”)

under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) dated 21.03.2024 for A.Y. 2022-23. The Revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:

“1. The Order of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is erroneous in law and to the facts of the case.

2 The Ld.CIT(A), NFAC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,22,76,960/- made by the AO in the assessment order towards unexplained cash credits'

u/s 68 of the IT Act.

2.1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the entire addition without appreciating the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case.

2.2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition though the Ld.CIT(A) was aware of the fact that the said addition was made by the AO on the basis of the information received through CRIU that the assessee had done alleged unaccounted cash transactions which were unearthed in the Search & Seizure action conducted u/s.132 of the Act on 28.05.2022 in the case of M/S.JM Jain LLP.

2.3. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have caused in-depth examination through the Assessing Officer in respect of alleged unaccounted cash transactions done by the assessee with M/s. IM Jain LLP. Delhi in the F.Y.2021-22 particularly in the light of the fact that such information/data was emanated out of search action conducted by the Investigation Wing u/s 132 of the IT Act in the case of M/s.JM Jain LLP and also the assessee admitted to have done trading activity with the above group.

2.4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition by holding that the AO has passed assessment order by not allowing the assessee an opportunity to cross examine or rebut the statements and evidence that were made by third parties and were being used against the assessee. This finding of the Ld.CIT(A) is not acceptable as in the event of Assessing Officer failing to discharge his functions properly, obligation to conduct proper inquiry shifts to Commissioner (Appeals) and CIT(A) cannot simply delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the ground of lack of inquiry by the Assessing Officer or on the ground that the assessee has not been given an opportunity to cross examine the third parties.

2.5. The Ld.CIT(A) has plenary powers of Assessing Officer and should have himself caused third party examination to unearth the alleged unaccounted cash transactions of the assessee instead of accepting the submissions of the assessee during appeal proceedings.

3. The appellant craves leave to add or delete or amend or substitute any ground of appeal before and/or at the time of hearing of appeal.

4. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing, it is prayed that all these above additions be restored.”

2. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is engaged in the business of trading in ready-made garments under the name and style of Sri Ganesh Textile Market, Vizianagaram, An