Tribunal upholds assessing authority's addition on investments despite appeal dismissal

The tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the addition made by the assessing authority regarding investments in shares/mutual funds/RBI Bonds. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and despite the challenge of the assessment order and jurisdictional grounds for reopening under section 148, the tribunal found no fault in the assessing officer's actions. The appeal was disposed of ex-parte due to the absence of the assessee, and the tribunal decided not to intervene in the revenue authorities' order, affirming the addition.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Reopening of assessment under section 148.
3. Challenge of assessment order by the assessee.
4. Ex-parte disposal of appeal due to absence of the assessee.
5. Jurisdictional ground for reopening under section 148.
6. Upholding the addition made by the assessing authority.

Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing appeal
The assessee filed an application for the condonation of a 101-day delay, which was not strongly objected to by the Senior DR. The delay was condoned, allowing the appeal to proceed.

Issue 2: Reopening of assessment under section 148
The case was reopened under section 148 based on information regarding investments in shares/mutual funds/RBI Bonds. The assessing officer calculated the investment in shares at Rs. 5 lakh and the short-term capital gain at Rs. 2 lakh, resulting in a total addition of Rs. 7 lakh. The assessee challenged this before the bench, leading to an appeal before the CIT(A) and subsequently to the tribunal.

Issue 3: Challenge of assessment order by the assessee
The CIT(A) upheld the assessing officer's order, leading the aggrieved assessee to file an appeal before the tribunal. However, during the hearing, the assessee was absent, and the appeal was disposed of ex-parte after considering the submissions of the Senior DR and the available records.

Issue 4: Ex-parte disposal of appeal due to absence of the assessee
Despite multiple hearing dates being fixed and the nature of the dispute, the tribunal proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex-parte due to the absence of the assessee, after hearing the Senior DR and reviewing the available material on record.

Issue 5: Jurisdictional ground for reopening under section 148
The jurisdictional ground for the reopening under section 148 was challenged by the assessee, but the CIT(A) upheld the assessing officer's actions, stating that the non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) could not be challenged at that stage. The tribunal found no fault in the assessing officer's decision to reopen the assessment and make the additions.

Issue 6: Upholding the addition made by the assessing authority
The tribunal upheld the addition made by the assessing authority, as the assessee failed to provide contradictory facts or calculations against the assessing officer's order. The CIT(A) had discussed both legal and factual issues, and the tribunal decided not to intervene in the order of the revenue authorities, thereby dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the addition made by the assessing authority, and pronounced the order in open court on 20.12.2022.

---