LAXMANJI KHODAJI SOLANKI (THAKOR),GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

The brief facts relating to the case are that no return of income was filed by the assessee however On the basis of information in the possession of the AO that the assesse had purchased immoveable property for Rs. 4,26,00,000/-, the case of the assessee was reopened for the impugned year by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act. The assessee, however, did not respond to any notice issued to him. The assessee was also noted to be a non-filer of return of income. Having not filed return of income for the impugned year and in the absence of any assistance or cooperation by the assessee during assessment proceedings, the AO acted upon the information in his possession, of the assessee having invested in immovable property to the tune of Rs.4,26,00,000/- and with no explanation of the source of the same, he added the entire amount to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, exparte assessment was framed u/s.144 of the Act making addition of Rs.4,26,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act to the income of the assessee.

The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who in turn, dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable noting that the assessee had not paid any advance tax and by referring to the provisions of Section 249(4)(b) of the Act, as per which, where no return is filed by the assessee, the assessee has to pay an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him, for admitting the appeal for hearing before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) refused to admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication and dismissed the same as infructuous.

Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has come up in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal as under:

The reopening of assessment u/s 148 is bad in law as same has been done for verification purpose only for making fishing and roving inquiries.

Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 4,26,00,000/- u/s 69 as unexplained investment ignoring fact that there is no investment made by appellant and accordingly, this section does not apply and order passed by AO confirmed by NFAC is required to be quashed.

Ld. NFAC ought to have considered fact that appellant neither sold any land nor receive any consideration and accordingly, addition made by AO confirmed by NFAC is required to be quashed.

Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in invoking section 249(4) of the Act ignoring fact that appellant has no taxable income and accordingly not liable for filing return of income.

Ld. NFAC failed to pass order as per the provision of section 250(6) of the Act and appellant prays that same may be set aside to the file of CIT (A) / NFAC for readjudication.

Ld. NFAC erred in upholding invocation of section 115BBE of the Act.

Charging of Interest u/s 234A,234B,234C & 234D are unjustified.

Initiation of penalty u/s 271F is unjustified.

Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC is unjustified.”

The appeal is filed belatedly before us by a delay of 198 days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that even the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) was belated. He contended that the reason was that the assessee was an illiterate person living in ITA No. 1626/Ahd/2024 [Laxmanji Khodaji Solanki (Thakor) vs. ITO] A.Y. 2017-18 - 4 –