AJAY BALDEVBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(11) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-7(1)), AHMEDABAD

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Ahmedabad [CIT(A) in short] vide appeal no.CIT(A)-3/264/Wd.3(3)(1)/16-17 dated 22/03/2018 arising in the assessment order passed under s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 01/12/2011 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in passing an ex-parte order without proper consideration and appreciation of facts and circumstances at appellant's end as explained to the Id. CIT(A). That since the appellant was in search of a new A.R., the previous A.R. having withdrawn his LOA as also admitted by the Id. CIT(A) in his order deciding penalty appeal, the appellant bonafidely presumed that he would be given some time prior to any adverse inference. The appellant thus humbly states that the appeal be set-aside to the file of the Id. CIT(A) for decision afresh in the interest of natural justice and equity.

Today, the case was fixed for hearing but none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any adjournment application has been filed on record.

From the records, we observe that required notice was sent to the assessee by Registered Post which was duly served upon the assessee and in this respect acknowledgment from the Department of Posts has already been placed on record which shows that even in spite of service of notice, the assessee or his representative has not come before this Court for attending

We have heard the Ld.DR and perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by the revenue authorities. As per the facts of the present case, the assessee has indulged in a trading activity of stock exchange and as per AIR details with the Assessing Officer, the assessee made transaction of Rs.56,94,807/- in stock exchanges with the same time the assessee has made payment of Rs.33,09,504/- being payment made to credit card companies as per the AIR details.

During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the impugned investments but even in spite of availing numerous opportunities, the assessee could not explain the impugned investments. Thus, additions were made by the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) but had not put appearance on several dates, therefore Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on merits. The operative portion of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is contained in paragraph No.5.1 of his order which is reproduced hereunder:

After having gone through the facts of the present case, we find that the assessee miserably failed to explain the impugned assessment before Assessing Officer as well CIT(A). Therefore, the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) decided the orders against the assessee while making additions. Even before us, no new facts or circumstances have been placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities have also gone unrebutted, therefore, we find no reason to interfere into or to deviate from such findings of the authorities below and we uphold the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the ground raised by the Assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 05 -03-2020 at Ahmedabad Sd/- Sd/- ( AMARJIT SINGH) ( SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 05 / 03 /2020 ट�.सी.नायर, व.�न.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS