TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1980
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion by making various incorrect & irrelevant observations. 2. The assessee craves to amend, alter and modify any of the grounds of appeal 3. The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee the assessee is engaged in retail trade of stationery items. He was also a director in M/s. Gupteshwar Colonizers Pvt.Ltd. engaged in real estate business. Shri Purshottam Bairwa was also a director in this company till 2010. The DDIT(Inv.), Alwar on the basis of information that Mr. Purshottam Bairwa has purchased certain land amounting to Rs. 1,15,92,040/- recorded his statement on 07.03.2019. Further, statement of some of the sellers to whom land was sold by him was also recorded. However, DDIT(Inv.),Alwar was of the opinion that though the land was purchased by Mr. Purshottam Bairwa, the investment in purchase of land was made by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO issued notice u/s 148 on 28.03.2019 to the assessee. In course of assessment proceedings, the AO again recoded the statement of Purshottam Bairwa on 11.12.2019 where in reply to Q. No.19 (PB 117) he admitted to have purchased the land and in reply to Q. No.23....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rence of the assessee. In respect of sale of plot by Shri Purshottam Lal Bairwa, statement of some buyers was also recorded by the AO (PB 100-111)where these buyers of plot accepted that they have purchased land from Purshottam Bairwa. Thus when land was purchased by Purshottam Lal Bairwa, addition made by the AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) in the hands of assessee is unwarranted, unjustified and be deleted. 2. It may also be noted that after passing of assessment order in the case of assessee, the Ld. PCIT-1, Jaipur passed order u/s 263 dt. 27.03.2022 where the order passed by AO in case of Purshottam Bairwa and Gupteshwar Colonizers Pvt.Ltd. was set aside. Thereafter the AO, Ward-Dausa passed fresh order dated 28.03.2023 (PB 24-28) in case of Purshottam Bairwa where the addition was made of Rs. 1,24,12,000/- on substantive basis to be made on protective basis in case of Gupteshwar Colonizers Pvt.Ltd. However, the AO, NFAC in the fresh order dated 27.03.2023 (PB 49-53)also made addition of Rs. 1,15,92,040/- in case of Gupteshwar Colonizers Pvt.Ltd. again on substantive basis. Thus when the addition made in the hands of assessee has been added in case of Purshottam Bairwa ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Non-Cooperation at the AO Level to Suppress Evidence * Repeated notices under Section 142(1), Section 144, and show-cause notices were deliberately ignored. * This tactic was used to avoid furnishing financial documents that could expose the real ownership. * The AO was compelled to complete the assessment based on available material, as the assessees intentionally refused to respond. 3. Diversion of Funds and Unexplained Cash Transactions * Large cash payments were made to purchase properties, and the funds remained unexplained. * No banking trail was provided, and no genuine books of accounts were maintained. * The audit report of Gupteshwar Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. and other financial statements do not substantiate the source of these payments. 4. Deliberate Delay Tactics Before CIT (A) * The assessment orders o Babulal Bairwa and Gupteshwar Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. are pending before CIT (A). * Even at the appellate level, the assessees have not submitted any new evidence justifying their claims. * This further reinforces that the assessee's conduct is meant to avoid scrutiny....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....023 No response * Despite multiple opportunities, the assessees intentionally refused to cooperate. * The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) held that the burden of proof shifts to the assessee to establish the genuineness of transactions, failing which the tax authorities are justified in drawing adverse inference. * In tax jurisprudence, courts have consistently held that assessees who exhibit non-cooperation during assessment proceedings cannot later seek remedial relief. Non-compliance with statutory notices and failure to provide requisite information often result in adverse decisions against the assessee Shri Satish Chand Katta, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, on 30th December, 2024, ITAT Jaipur, the assessee's case was taken up for scrutiny following a notice issued under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, subsequent to a search operation. The assessee failed to cooperate during the assessment proceedings, leading to an unfavorable outcome. * Similarly, in M/s. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-5, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) imposed costs on the assessee for....