EKNATH GENABA SHINDE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(1), PUNE
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRAAssessment year : 2016-17
PER R.K. PANDA, VP:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated
19.03.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2016-17. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the addition of Rs.52,57,38,505/- made by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that as per information available with the department for financial year 2015-16 it was seen that the assessee sold immovable property for a total consideration of Rs.52,57,38,505/-. Since the assessee had not filed his return of income and has not disclosed the income in respect of the above transactions, the Assessing Officer, after recording reasons, reopened the assessment as per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Accordingly notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2021. However, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee for which the Assessing Officer subsequently issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act to the assessee on 31.12.2021 and again on 09.02.2022 asking the assessee to file certain information. Again there was no compliance from the side of the assessee for which the Assessing Officer issued a final show cause notice asking the assessee to file the relevant details. However, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee to the final show cause notice for which the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.52,57,38,505/-.
Since, despite number of opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee did not respond to any of the notices, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assesse.
Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
3
6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee is an individual and is an employee of Pate group of companies. The assessee is a power of attorney holder and was acting as an attorney holder in respect of the immovable property registrations done by the Pate group entities which is engaged in the business of builders and developers. He submitted that since the assessee was representing Pate group of builders and developers before all the Sub-