SMT. LIZ HEMANGBHAI BHATT,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who granted partial relief by restricting the addition related to cheque deposits to 1/6th of the total deposits, considering the joint nature of the bank account. However, the CIT(A) upheld the addition of commission income and disallowed deductions claimed under Chapter VI-A.

The assessee filed the present appeal before us challenging the decision of the CIT(A). The assessee raised the following grounds in the appeal: 1. That on facts and in law, the learned AO has grievously erred in re-opening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act based on erroneous reasons, and hence the entire assessment order is invalid and void ab-initio.

That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT (A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.18,000/- out of Rs. 65,03,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act in respect of cash deposits in Bank Account.

That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT (A) has grievously erred in confirming 1/6th addition of Rs.19,52 408/- out of Rs.1,17,14,443/- made u/s 69 of the Act in respect cheque deposits in Bank Account, even though the appellant is only a joint holder of the account.

That on facts, in law and on evidence on record, the learned CIT (A) has grievously erred in confirming the disallowance of expenses of Rs.22,45,170/- claimed by the appellant against the commission income offered to tax.

That on facts and on evidence on record, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in not adjudicating on the ground of property income of Rs.7,39,541/- treated as income from other sources by the AO, which has also resulted in double taxation.

That the learned CIT (A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of claim of deduction of Rs. 1, 00,000/- under Chapter VI A of the Act. Asst. Year : 2008-09

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend any ground of appeal.

The appeal was listed for hearing on 36 occasions. On 27.08.2024 (30th hearing), arguments were made on Ground No. 3 regarding the cheque deposits, and the assessee was directed to file evidence supporting her contention that she was only a joint holder and not the primary holder. On 22.10.2024 (32nd hearing), the assessee was asked to submit a confirmation from the primary account holder along with a reconciliation statement explaining the nature of the transactions in the bank account. The case was adjourned to 16.12.2024, but while the assessee submitted the bank account statement giving details of the joint holders, no further explanation was offered regarding the deposits.

During the 35th hearing, the Assessee’s Representative (AR) filed an application for withdrawal of his appearance, and a notice was issued to the assessee to appear on 28.01.2025. However, the notice was returned unserved. On 28.01.2025 (36th hearing), neither the assessee nor any authorized representative appeared before us.

The Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the CIT(A) has passed a well-reasoned order, and in the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution.

We considered the ground-wise decisions of CIT(A) in case of grounds, which were argued before the bench at the time of earlier hearing. The summary is as follows: Asst. Year : 2008-09

The AO treated the entire cheque deposits of Rs.1,17,14,443/- as unexplained investment and added the full amount under Section 69. The assessee contended that she was merely a joint holder, with her husband being the primary holder. CIT(A), considering the remand report, restricted the addition to 1/6th of the total deposits (Rs.19,52,408/-), as the bank account had six joint holders.

The AO disallowed expenses of Rs.22,45,170/- against commission income, stating that no documentary evidence was provided. The assessee failed to furnish supporting documents even during appellate proceedings and CIT(A) confirmed the AO’s disallowance.

The AO treated rental income of Rs.7,39,541/- as "income from other sources" instead of "Income from House Property". CIT(A) directed the AO to assess it under "House Property" with deductions under Section 24(b).

The AO disallowed the deduction for lack of supporting evidence. The assessee failed to submit any evidence during appellate proceedings. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. Asst. Year : 2008-09

Considering the fact that the assessee has been granted multiple opportunities and in view of the non-appearance and non-prosecution on the date of the final hearing, we are inclined to follow many judicial precedents where it was held that if the assessee fails to appear and prosecute the appeal, the same may be dismissed for non-prosecution. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of CIT(A), who has already granted substantial relief.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution.

अपीलाथ$ / The Appellant 2. "%थ$ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु& / Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु& ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)-5, Ahmedabad 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध , अिधकरण