2022 (3) TMI 61 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Cooperation and Evidence

Prahlad Singh Bisht Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), Ghaziabad

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to cooperate, provide necessary documents, and substantiate their claims, leading to the ... Unexplained credit in the capital account - Addition being 20% of the cost of construction - assessee failed to produce any details or documentary evidence in support - HELD THAT:- Though the assessee filed written submissions and certain copies of accounts, he failed to produce supporting evidence in support of the addition to the capital, or unsecured creditors etc. Because of non production all these documents, the AO held the issues against the assessee and made the additions. Impugned order shows that in spite of repeated notices issued, except seeking adjournment, the assessee did not cooperate with the first appellate authority nor any attempt was made to produce the information that was sought by the AO. Even before us also, the assessee is not diligent to prosecute this appeal. For want of evidence or material supporting the claims of the assessee, it is not possible for us to take a different view that was taken by the authorities. For these reasons, we do not find any reason to take a view contrary to the one taken by the authorities and we find no option but to confirm the additions. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Issues:1. Failure of the assessee to cooperate with the authorities and produce necessary documents.2. Addition of unexplained credits and unverified claims in the assessment.3. Dismissal of the appeal due to lack of evidence and non-cooperation.Analysis:Issue 1: Failure to CooperateThe appellant, a trading business proprietor, challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment year 2012-13. However, despite multiple notices and opportunities, the appellant and their representative did not appear before the authorities. The notices sent were returned as the appellant had left the address provided. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not adopt any method to receive the notices, leading to a lack of cooperation. Consequently, the Tribunal proceeded to hear the case based on the record and the arguments presented by the Revenue's counsel.Issue 2: Addition of Unexplained Credits and Unverified ClaimsThe Assessing Officer had made various additions to the appellant's income, including unexplained credits in the capital account, unsupported fresh capital introductions, and unverified unsecured loans. The appellant failed to provide necessary documentation such as bank statements, names, addresses, and ITRs of lenders. Additionally, the appellant could not substantiate entries related to advance payments, unsecured loans, and construction costs, leading to disallowances and additions by the Assessing Officer. Despite filing written submissions, the appellant did not produce supporting evidence, resulting in adverse decisions against them.Issue 3: Dismissal of AppealThe first appellate authority and the Tribunal found that the appellant did not cooperate or provide essential information to substantiate their claims. Despite repeated notices and opportunities, the appellant failed to produce the required evidence. The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the authorities due to the lack of supporting documentation and the appellant's non-diligence in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's failure to cooperate, provide necessary documents, and substantiate their claims, leading to the confirmation of additions made by the Assessing Officer.