Ex parte assessment and section 68 additions upheld where notices were ignored and supporting evidence was not produced.

Repeated non-compliance with statutory notices and failure to produce books, confirmations, or supporting material justified an ex parte assessment under section 144 and sustaining the section 68 additions. The Tribunal also refused admission of additional evidence because no sufficient cause was shown under Rule 29, and held that no denial of natural justice was made out. The set-off of brought forward losses was left to verification from the record, as the claim had not been made before the Assessing Officer. Interest under section 234B was sustained as mandatory once statutory conditions were satisfied.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the ex parte assessment and the confirmations of the disallowances and addition under section 68 were liable to be interfered with, and whether additional evidence should be admitted; (ii) whether the direction regarding set off of brought forward losses was correct; and (iii) whether interest under section 234B was chargeable.

Issue (i): Whether the ex parte assessment and the confirmations of the disallowances and addition under section 68 were liable to be interfered with, and whether additional evidence should be admitted.

Analysis: The record showed repeated statutory notices under section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and further opportunities before the appellate authority, but the assessee failed to comply or produce books, confirmations, or supporting evidence. The Tribunal held that the requirements of section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were satisfied, that there was no denial of natural justice, and that the assessee had not shown sufficient cause under Rule 29 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admitting additional evidence. In the absence of material, the adverse inference drawn by the authorities below was upheld.

Conclusion: The ex parte assessment was upheld, the additions were sustained, and the request for admission of additional evidence was rejected, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the direction regarding set off of brought forward losses was correct.

Analysis: The claim for set off had not been made before the Assessing Officer, and the appellate direction was only for verification from the record in accordance with law.

Conclusion: No interference was called for, and this ground was decided against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether interest under section 234B was chargeable.

Analysis: Interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is mandatory once the statutory conditions are met.

Conclusion: The levy of interest under section 234B was sustained, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in entirety and the additions, ancillary levy, and procedural objections were all left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Repeated non-compliance with statutory notices and failure to produce supporting evidence justify ex parte assessment and refusal of additional evidence, and adverse inference may be drawn where the best evidence is withheld without sufficient cause.

---