TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds dismissal of appeal due to lack of cooperation in providing necessary information.</h1> <h3>Sri Saleem Syed, C/o V. Madhusudan Phani Versus ITO, Ward 6 (2) Hyderabad</h3> Sri Saleem Syed, C/o V. Madhusudan Phani Versus ITO, Ward 6 (2) Hyderabad - TMI Issues:Assessee's appeal against order of Ld.CIT(A)-6 for A.Y. 2014-15.Analysis:The case involved an individual assessee who had not filed any return of income for the relevant assessment year or earlier years. The assessment was reopened based on AIR information, and the assessee admitted a taxable income of Rs. 2,60,600 from commission income after receiving a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed to be engaged in chit business and stated that the commission earned from it was the source of income. However, the assessee failed to provide details regarding the chit business, such as the number of people involved, quantum of chit amount, and relevant receipts. Consequently, the Assessing Officer treated the entire deposits of Rs. 35,85,400 as unexplained income and brought it to tax.The assessee, aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) but did not appear for the proceedings. As a result, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, the assessee approached the Tribunal by filing a second appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision. However, the Tribunal noted that the case had been adjourned multiple times at the request of the assessee for rectification of defects in the appeal. Despite several adjournments, the assessee failed to rectify the defects or provide any information to support the claim that the deposits were commission income from the chit business. Due to the non-appearance of the assessee and the failure to rectify the defects, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the AO/CIT(A) and consequently dismissed the assessee's appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to dismiss the assessee's appeal, emphasizing the lack of cooperation from the assessee in rectifying the defects in the appeal and providing necessary information to substantiate the claim of deposits being commission income. The order was pronounced in Open Court on 31st January 2020.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
