LATA NIVRUTTI HAKE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(5), PUNE, PUNE

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. A perusal of the order sheet entries shows that this appeal was fixed for hearing on a number of times and was last fixed for hearing on 30.09.2025. Since none appeared on that date, the case was adjourned to 10.12.2025. However, today also when the name of the assessee was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any petition seeking adjournment of the case has been filed. A perusal of the assessment order shows that it was also an ex-parte order. 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 an individual and filed his return of income on 28.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs.1,39,270/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued and served on the assessee. Subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was also issued and served on the assessee calling for certain details. However, due to non-compliance to any of the statutory notices, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of agricultural income and made addition of Rs.78,70,685/- treating the agricultural income as “unexplained income”.

In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer which was confronted to the assessee. However, in absence of any submission by the assessee to the remand report, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC decided the issue against the assessee 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: 1) Ld. CIT (Appeal) erred in confirming additions of gross sale of nursery Rs.78,70,685/- as net taxable income instead of agricultural income. 2) Ld CIT (Appeal) has erred in confirming additions without appreciating assessee case in proper perspective. 3) Ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in confirming additions on the basis of mere surmises and conjuctures without giving Appellant reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard. 4) The Appellant craves leaves to add amend alter or withdraw any of the grounds of Appeal as and when occasions demands. 5) The Appellant craves leaves to produce such further evidence to substantiate the case as and when occasions demands.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-submission of any details before the Assessing Officer, he rejected the claim of agricultural income and brought to tax an amount of Rs.78,70,685/- as “unexplained income”. We find in appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in sustaining the addition of Rs.78,70,685/- made by the Assessing Officer as “unexplained income” since nothing has been produced either before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC or even before us. We, therefore, uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee.

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