TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1364
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts and circumstances of the. case and in law the Id CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,56,800 u/s. 60C as unexplained expenditure. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 60,000 as undisclosed income from truck u/s. 44AE. 5. The appellate craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing." Also, the assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal which reads as under: "Additional Gr.No.1 "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s. 147 dt.22-12-17 is invalid as the AO has not issued notice u/s. 143(2), after filing the ROI on 26-4-17 in response to the notice issued u/s. 148 dt.30-3-17 for AY 10-11; in absence of notice issued u/s. 143(2), reassessment made u/s. 147 would be invalid for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed." Additional Gr.No.2 "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, assessment made u/s. 147 dt.22-12-17 by ITO- 4(4) is invalid as he was not having valid authority of law/ jurisdiction for framing assessment for AY10-11; in absence of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n cash. On verification, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee was engaged in the business of food grains. The A.O further observed, viz. (i) there was high turnover in the account within a very short period of time of its opening; (ii) the frequent withdrawal of large cash amounts did not appear to be normal with the scale of the assessee's business activity; and (iii) the cash withdrawals immediately after receipt of funds through RTGS defied economic rationale. 4. Also, the A.O observed that the Investigation Wing of the department had summoned the assessee for seeking an explanation as regards the rationale of credits and cash withdrawals in his bank account. In reply, it was the claim of the assessee that he was engaged in the business of trading in commodity, i.e. Urad. Elaborating further, it was stated by him that though primarily the purchases were made through brokers but some of the purchases were made directly from the farmers. It was stated by him that the goods purchased were either directly sent to the buyers of Andhra Pradesh and Tamilnadu or kept at the godown at Amlibadar. The assessee further stated that payments received through RTGS in the bank account ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsideration. Apart from that, the A.O observed that as the returned income of the assessee did not suffice to source the business expenditure of Rs. 8.24 lacs that was incurred by him, therefore he made an addition of the deficit amount of Rs. 3,56,800/- as an unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act. Also, the A.O made an addition towards deemed income of Rs. 60,000/- u/s. 44AE of the Act, i.e. the income from plying of truck by the assessee. Accordingly, the A.O based on his aforesaid observations vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 22.12.2017 after, inter alia, making the aforesaid additions assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 3,51,14,000/-. 7. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. As the assessee despite having been afforded six opportunities had except for seeking adjournments on three occasions failed to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals), therefore, the latter holding a firm conviction that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the matter, upheld the additions made by the A.O. 8. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iii) Pr. CIT Vs. Marck Biosciences Ltd. (2019) 106 taxmann.com 399 (Gujarat) (iv) Girishbhai Nanjibhai Solanki Vs. ITO (2023) 150 taxmann.com 267 (Rajkot-Trib) The Ld. AR submitted that the Hon'ble Courts in all the aforesaid judicial pronouncements/orders, had held that where the assessee in compliance to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act had filed a letter (on 26.04.2017) requesting that his original return of income be treated as a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the A.O thereafter was mandatorily required to issue notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act before proceeding any further and framing the assessment. 12. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representatives (for short 'DR') relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. DR that the A.O had validly assumed jurisdiction and framed the assessment vide his order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 22.12.2017. Rebutting the Ld. AR's contention that the impugned assessment order was passed de-hors issuance of a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, the Ld. DR submitted that the same was not statutorily required for framing of an assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. 13. As the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be factually incorrect. As the assessee had filed with the A.O on 26.04.2017 a letter requesting that his original return of income filed on 28.09.2010 may be treated as a return of income filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, therefore, the same in our view was in itself a due compliance of the notice issued by the A.O u/s. 148 of the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgments/orders, viz. (i) Pr. CIT Vs. S.G Portfolio (P). Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 761 (Delhi); (ii) Swapna Manuel Vs. (Mad.(2024) 160 taxmann.com 166 ( Mad. HC); (iii) Pr. CIT Vs. Marck Biosciences Ltd. (2019) 106 taxmann.com 399 (Gujarat); and (iv) Girishbhai Nanjibhai Solanki Vs. ITO (2023) 150 taxmann.com 267 (Rajkot-Trib). 18. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties in the backdrop of the orders of the lower authorities. As is discernible from the order of the CIT(Appeals), it transpires that as the assessee despite having been afforded six opportunities had except for seeking adjournments on three occasions had failed to participate in the proceedings before the CIT(Appeals), therefore, the latter holding a firm convi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal under s. 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact w.e.f. 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the AO and restore it to the AO for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the AO i.e. he can do all that A.O could do. Therefore, just as it is not open to the AO to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the s. 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Sec. 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to....