TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 730
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A), ought to have up held the order of the AO. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) be set-a-side and that of the AO be restored." 3. At the outset, we note that assessee's case has been listed for hearings more than twenty five times, however neither assessee nor his authorized representative appeared before this Tribunal except one occasion, where Shri Kalpesh Doshi, CA appeared and asked for adjournment. In this case notices for hearing were sent to the assessee by register post on several occasions on the address given by assessee in Form No.36. Last date of hearing was fixed in this case on 23.09.2021, however, no one was present on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing. Neither an adjournment petition was filed in respect of the above assessee, it means the assessee is not interested to prosecute these appeals. Therefore, we proceed to adjudicate these appeals, on merits, based on the material available on record. 4. We have h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the reopening of the assessment by the learned AO without any irregularity. 2. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 148 without issuing notice u/s 143(2)(ii) within stipulated time limit. 3. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the completion of assessment without considering the fact that the learned AO had not given proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. That, the learned CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed addition of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- on account of unexplained investments u/s 69 of the IT Act. 5. That, the findings of the learned CIT(A) are unjustified and required to be deleted. The assessee craves to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal." 9. Facts of the case which can be stated quite shortly are as follows: In this case, the assessee filed FIR in Umra Police station Surat on 07.01.2009 that he entered into a deal with Shri Bharatbhai C. Shah for a land admeasuring 2360 vigha @ Rs. 2,80,000/- per vigha. The assessee claimed to have paid cash of Rs. 50,00,000/- as token money and subsequently to have paid Rs. 1,35,00,000/-. Thus, the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....147 because of noncompliance of assessee to a number of notices issued by the assessing officer. The details are given in assessment order reproduced below: Sr. No. Notice u/s Date of issue of notice Attended/ not attended 1 148 27.02.2013 Letter filed in compliance 2 143(2) 27.01.2014 Not attended 3 142(1) 05.03.2014 Not attended Therefore, Assessing Officer was of opinion that the assessee has measurably failed to explain about the source of investment of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- in the form of advance. Accordingly, the same was treated as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,85,00,000/-, was added to the total income of the assessee for A.Y.2006-07. 10. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who has dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing as follows: "5. DECISION 5.1 Admittedly advance of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- were made by assessee for the purchase of said land. Hence, the assessment for A.Y. 2005-06 was completed by making the said addition. However, the Id. CIT(A) held that the advance were made in previous year relevant to A.Y. 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for admission of additional evidence under one of the four categories referred (supra), the additional evidence can't be admitted. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced herein under:- "8,....As regards, the deposit of Rs. 4,29,067/- on account of cheques deposit / clearing credits, the assessee explained the source to be personal loan taken from other banks. The assessee did not file any evidence before the AO in this regard. The learned CIT (A) has not mentioned anything in the appellate order if the assessee made any request for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46 A of the I T Rules. The learned CIT (A) did not record any reasons for entertaining the additional evidences. The learned CIT (A) did not mention if any such circumstances have been made for admission of any additional evidences. Rather, in Para 2 of the appellate order, the learned CIT (A) contrarily noted that opportunities have been provided to the assessee at the assessment stage. It would, therefore, show that proper opportunities have been granted to the assessee at the assessment stage and the assessee has failed to make out any case of denial of opportunity or having any sufficie....