KAMAL KISHOR T RATHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), MUMBAI

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 23.09.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Ld. CIT(A)’) for the assessment year 2010-11.

Ld. AR moved an application for seeking adjournment, however ongoing through the case file I noticed that assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A), and even the application for seeking adjournment moved by the assesee was not found 2 Kamal Kishor T Rathi, Mumbai tenable on account of the reasons mentioned in the said application. Whereas the Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments, therefore while rejecting the application for seeking adjournment I have allowed both the parties to address arguments on the merits of the appeal.

The Ld. AR raised solitary ground that Ld. CIT(A) had not given proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Whereas on the contrary Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

I have heard the counsels for both the parties and have perused the material placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records I noticed that order of assessment was passed thereby making additions of Rs. 18,00,000/- on account of unaccounted cash deposits in the bank account and Rs. 2,40,000/- on account of unaccounted brokerage and commission made by the AO in the hands of the assessee. Since assessee could not appear before Ld. CIT(A), therefore the appeal was dismissed by holding that assessee could not substantiate his claim by filing supporting documentary evidences and relevant details. It was categorically mentioned in the order of Ld. CIT(A) that sufficient and proper opportunities were granted to the assessee to substantiate its claim but assessee withhold the relevant details / documentary evidences. Therefore while 3 Kamal Kishor T Rathi, Mumbai drawing presumption u/s 114(g) of the evidence Act the appeal was dismissed.