SHISH RAM GURJAR,PATAN, NEEM KA THANA vs. A.O., NEEM KA THANA

Brief facts emerging are that the assessee has filed his regular return disclosing an income of Rs. 9.92 lakhs. Subsequently, on the basis of information received on insight portal ( HR/Non PAN / CRIU/ VRU), that the assessee has purchased an immovable property along with two other individuals (jointly) with total purchase value of Rs.2.53 crores, the assessee being 1/3rdcoowner, has invested Rs. 84.57 crores, reassessment proceedings were initiated vide notice u/s 148 dated 27/07/2022 ( as per procedure under new regime). Though no return was submitted in response to notice u/s 148, written explanations were filed by the assessee explaining the source of investment in his immovable property (which he admitted to be Rs1.35 crores) claiming the source to have come from unsecured loans and from bank refinancing, the details of which were filed. The AO not being satisfied upon verification of such details carried out u/s 133(6) of the Act, completed the assessment with an addition of Rs. 1.35 crores u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained.

The appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), has been dismissed for total non compliance to various notices issued by the Ld first appellate authority on different occasions and as ascertainable from the appellate order (para5.2), notices has been correctly issued to the email id provided by the assessee in Form 35 and also in departmental portal and there is no valid reason for the assessee for his non compliance.

The CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal without any adjudication on the grounds of appeal contained in the memorandum in form 35, on merits, in absence of any documentary evidences before him. 5. Before the tribunal the assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal and has raised objections relating to absence of opportunity of hearing, and the Ld AR further submitted that the Ld. first appellate authority has not considered the submission filed by the assessee explaining the source of investment in purchase of property, even though confirmation of loans were furnished along with bank statements, registered sale deed , and bank refinance papers and other supporting documents before the AO , and he prays for an opportunity of hearing to explain his case supported by documentary evidence. 6. However, the Ld. AR of the assessee has not disputed issue and receipt of hearing notice from the office of the Ld CIT(A), neither in his grounds of appeal nor in course of hearing and he has not come forward with any reason whatsoever, as to why no compliance has been made before the Ld first appellate authority, even though notice was duly received. 7. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 8. We find that the memo of appeal in form 35 contains the email id and the Ld CIT(A) has rightly issued notices on different dates, in the said mail, without any response, and no reasons at all are put forth by the Ld.AR, for not responding to such notices, causing unnecessary loss of judicial hours. 8.1 We are of the opinion that in the instant case the assessee has not come with clean hands before the court and there is negligence on the part of the assessee at the appellate stages and we deem it fit and proper to impose a token cost of Rs.5,000/- ( Rs five thousand only ) on the assessee to be paid to the credit of the