M/S VENKATESH ASSOCIATES ,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-5 , PUNE

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing nor any application seeking adjournment of the case has been filed. A perusal of the order sheet entries shows that no one was appearing before the Tribunal when the appeal was fixed for hearing on 20.01.2026, 17.03.2026 and 30.04.2026 respectively. Today also when the name of the assessee was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we deem it proper to decide this appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction of residential projects. It filed its return of income on 09.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.1,52,42,120/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and accordingly statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued and served on the assessee. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) along with a questionnaire was issued and served on the assessee in response to which the assessee filed certain details. The Assessing Officer, in the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, made addition of Rs.3,78,67,700/- u/s 43CA of the Act.

In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making an addition of Rs.35,36,875/-, out of which Rs.10,73,000/- has been added being the alleged difference between the sale consideration received/accrued and the value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty under section 43CA of the Act. The said addition is bad in law and on facts since the difference is less than 5%-10% of the sale consideration as provided under the proviso to section 43CA. The action of the officer being unjustified and unsustainable, the impugned order may kindly be quashed to that extent. Your appellant craves for to add, alter, amend, modify, delete all above or any grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of natural justice.

We have heard the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the record. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on this issue. Admittedly the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of Rs.3,78,67,700/- invoking the provisions of section 43CA of the Act on account of difference between the sale consideration declared by the assessee and the value adopted for stamp duty purposes. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC while deciding the issue has passed a

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.