M/S. SAKETH BUILDERS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed their return of income and based on the information, a notice u/s. 148 was issued for which also the assessee had not filed his return of income. Thereafter, notice u/s. 142(1) was issued for which also the assessee had not responded. Since the assessee had not responded to any notices, a reference to the verification unit was made on 14/01/2022 and the notice was sent through speed post which was received by the assessee on 29/01/2022. In spite of the receipt of the notice, the assessee had not filed any response and thereafter a show cause notice was issued and finally an assessment has been made u/s. 144 of the Act in which the payments made for the transfer of the property has been treated as income u/s. 69 of the Act. The AO had sent a draft assessment order for which the assessee filed their reply on 18/03/2022. The AO observed that the assessee had not submitted any documentary evidences for the source of the fund and therefore the AO had confirmed the assessment. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and contended that the AO had not considered the explanation offered at the time of assessment and also the AO had not considered the relevant documents produced before him and therefore the assessment is an arbitrary one. The assessee further contended that even assuming that the assessee had not submitted any documents / explanations, during the Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee had paid a part payment and the balance in the next assessment year and therefore subjecting the entire sale consideration as paid during the Assessment Year is against the facts of the case.

The Ld.CIT(A) had issued notices on four occasions but the assessee had neither filed any written submissions nor applied for an adjournment except for the hearing notice dated 30/10/2024 and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had rejected the adjournment request and dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that several documents were placed before the AO but unfortunately the AO had not considered the same and passed an order u/s. 144 of the Act as if the assessee had not submitted any details. The Ld.AR further submitted that the addition made u/s. 69 in respect of the purchase of property is also not correct since the assessee had paid a part consideration during the Assessment Year and the balance consideration during the next Assessment Year and therefore taking the entire sale consideration as the amount paid during the Assessment Year and subjected the same to tax u/s. 69 of the Act is not correct.