2023 (11) TMI 184 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed for Non-Compliance; Capital Asset Sale Addition Upheld Despite Unfair Treatment Allegations.

The appeal was dismissed by the ITAT Jaipur Bench due to the assessee's repeated non-compliance with notices and failure to provide supporting documents ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Assessment u/s 147/144 was completed ex-parte - Addition of sale of property as capital asset - HELD THAT:- As the assessee was given the chance to represent the case before CIT(A) and even though there were three notices given after set aside of the proceedings by the Bench to the assessee. Three instances of the notices are given in span of 10 months and the assessee did file any submission in support of the grounds raised in the appeal before the CIT(A). As in support of the fact that the assessee remained noncompliant in the earlier round of litigation. One more chance was given by the Bench vide order dated 06.03.2020 on which the assessee in support of given three occasions did not appear and file the requisite submission before CIT(A). Therefore, it appears that the assessee is not interested in pursuing his case on merits. Before us also while filing the appeal, the assessee did not file any document in support of the claim that why the addition is not sustainable and it is sale of property and is capital assets and receipt thereof is not chargeable to tax in full. Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment include the validity of the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, the validity of the assessment order, the treatment of the sale of property as a capital asset, allegations against the assessee, and the compliance of the assessee with notices and submissions during the proceedings.Validity of Notice under Section 148:The notice under section 148 was issued after obtaining prior approval, as there was information that the assessee had sold land. Despite multiple notices for compliance, the assessee did not respond adequately, leading to an ex-parte assessment. The appeal was filed challenging the validity of this notice, but the assessee failed to provide supporting documents or submissions. The bench noted the lack of compliance by the assessee and dismissed the appeal based on the available facts.Validity of Assessment Order:The assessment order was passed ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee with notices under section 142(1) and subsequent opportunities to respond. The appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was also decided ex-parte because of total non-compliance by the assessee. The ITAT Jaipur Bench set aside the issue for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity to represent the case. However, despite multiple notices and chances to submit, the assessee did not provide any supporting documentation or submissions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.Treatment of Sale of Property as Capital Asset:The addition of Rs. 8,31,375/- was sustained by treating the sale of property as a capital asset, which the assessee contested. The assessee did not provide any evidence or submissions to support the claim that the addition was not sustainable or that the receipt from the sale of the property should not be taxable. The lack of supporting documents or arguments from the assessee led to the dismissal of the appeal.Allegations Against the Assessee:The assessee raised concerns about allegations made against them, stating that they were contrary to natural justice. However, the assessee did not provide any evidence or submissions to support this claim. Despite being given opportunities to present their case and respond to notices, the assessee did not actively participate in the proceedings, which led to the dismissal of the appeal.Compliance of the Assessee with Notices and Submissions:The bench highlighted the non-compliance of the assessee with multiple notices and opportunities to submit documents or arguments during the proceedings. Despite being given chances to represent the case and respond to notices, the assessee failed to provide any substantial submissions or evidence to support their grounds. This lack of participation and compliance ultimately resulted in the dismissal of the appeal.Separate Judgment by Judges:No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case. The order was pronounced in open court on the specified date, and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed based on the facts available on record.