Sandeep Vinayakrao Sakhare vs Income Tax Officer, Karnal

“1.

That the impugned order dated 09.03.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) u/s 250 is bad in law and on facts and is liable to be set aside, being in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the same has been passed without granting adequate and effective opportunity of hearing and without proper appreciation of the facts and material on record.

2.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in dismissing the appeal for alleged non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits, ignoring that the Appellant had sufficient and reasonable cause including technical glitches in accessing notices on the ITBA portal and had sought adjournments, and that it is a settled position of law that an appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution and must be decided on merits, as held in CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2016) 240 Taxman 133 (Bom HC).

3.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to pass a speaking order and has not adjudicated the grounds raised by the Appellant on merits, thereby rendering the impugned order arbitrary, non-speaking and unsustainable in law, and the reliance placed on B.N. Bhattacharjee (118 ITR 461, SC) is misplaced and misconceived.

4.

That the reassessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order passed u/s 147 read with section 144 are illegal, void ab initio and liable to be quashed, as mandatory notices u/s 148 and 142(1) were never validly served upon the Appellant, which is evident from the record itself showing repeated failure of service due to incorrect/incomplete address, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings.

5.

That without prejudice, the addition of ₹86,93,750/- made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, excessive and unsustainable, having been made without any proper inquiry, verification or examination of the source of investment and merely on presumptions.

6.

That the Ld. CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer have failed to appreciate the true nature of the transaction, which was a bona fide commercial arrangement involving receipt of advances (bayana) and subsequent utilization thereof for purchase of property through banking channels.

7.

That the addition made u/s 69 is wholly unjustified, as the source of investment stood duly explained through documented flow of funds, and no adverse inference could have been drawn in absence of any contrary material.

8.

That the authorities below erred in ignoring the settled position that addition u/s 69 cannot be made merely on suspicion, conjectures or surmises, without bringing any cogent evidence on record.

9.

That the authorities failed to consider the settlement transaction involving payment of ₹48,30,000/- to Smt. Vijay Madaan, which was part of dispute resolution and redistribution of advances, and not an unexplained transaction.

10.

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering that in the case of Smt. Vijay Madaan, arising from the same set of transactions, the Department has accepted the genuineness of the transactions, and therefore, on principles of consistency and parity, no adverse view could have been taken in the case of the Appellant.

11.

That the impugned addition is contrary to the doctrine of consistency, as identical facts arising from the same transaction cannot be treated differently in the hands of connected parties.

12.

That the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing relevant evidences before the lower authorities, and the same deserve to be admitted at this stage in the interest of justice.

13.

The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds at or before the time of hearing.”