RAFIQ MAHBOOBSAB SHAIKH,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX WARD-2, LATUR

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 21 days in filing of the instant appeal. We have heard both the sides. On going through the application for condonation of delay we notice that appellant’s father was facing some medical issues and the assessee was required to attend his father. Finding it to be a reasonable cause we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

The Ld. AO & Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Ld. CIT(A)") erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition U/s 69 of Rs. 15,00,000/-by concluding that the source of investment for the purchase of agricultural land was not adequately explained.

The Ld. CIT(A) enhanced the taxable income to Rs. 18,50,740/- without sufficient justification and directed the Ld. AO to adopt this figure while giving effect to the order under Section 250(6) of the Act. This enhancement is arbitrary and contrary to the facts on record.

That the Appellant craves leave to add or alter or any other grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.

Though the assessee has raised grounds on merits but the main contention of the assessee is that the assessee failed to appear on various notices of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A) resulting in ex-parte order. He therefore prayed that the issue on merits may please be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A). On the other hand Ld. DR supported the order of lower authorities.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We notice that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income. Based on the information about purchase of immovable property by the assessee notice u/s 148 issued for carrying out the assessment proceedings. Assessee failed to appear on the days of hearing. Ld. AO based on the information received from Joint