2026 (3) TMI 810

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment Unit Income-Tax Department (for brevity the 'Ld. AO') order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act date of order 21.09.2022. 2. When the appeal was call for hearing none was present on behalf of the assessee to represent this case. There is no application for seeking adjournment either. Considering the nature of the dispute, we proceed to dispose of appeal ex parte qua for assessee after hearing the Ld. DR and on the basis of material available on record. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds:- Ground of appeal "1. The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in passing order u/s. 250 of LT. Act, 1961 by dismissing the appeal submitted before him against the order u/s 143 (3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as Expar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....NFAC could have consider the submission made with the appeal papers Bank Loan statement for purchase of flat as the Id. A.O. erred in making addition on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of 1.T.Act, 1961 Rs. 1,17,61,180/- being difference out of total payment made to purchase the residential flat vide Agreement for sale i.e. Sale-Deed dt. 30.11.2019 for Rs. 2,48,71,000/- + Stampduty Rs. 22,05,180/- & Registration Fees Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 2,71,06,180/- considering only a sum of Rs. 1,53,45,000/-(Sale of old House property for Rs. 1,55,00,000/- Less TDS Rs. 1,55,000/-) being the money lying with the assesse and the balance is undisclosed / unexplained investment which is fully unjustified. The appellant appealed before the CIT (A), (NFAC....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) issued notices under section 250 of the Act and granted several opportunities of hearing on different dates. However, the assessee sought adjournment on three occasions and did not respond to the last two notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order and upheld the additions made by the Ld. AO. On perusal of the grounds raised in the present appeal, we find that the assessee has specifically contended that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order without considering the valuation report of the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) dated 27.09.2024. The assessee has further contended that the difference between the stamp duty va....