SANGEETA ARUN DESHMUKH,SATARA vs. ITO, WARD-5, SATARA

This assessee’s appeal for AY 2014-15 arises against the CIT(A)-10, Pune’s order dated 11/12/2019 passed in case No. PN/CIT(A)-10/ITO Wd5 Satara/160/17-18/895 involving proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee’s 10 substantive grounds challenge correctness of both the lower authorities action adding section 69 unexplained investments and section 68 unexplained cash credits of Rs.55,46,254/- and Rs.84,74,000/-; respectively, made in the course of assessment dated 02.12.2016 as upheld in the CIT(A).

We further note that the Assessing Officer had framed an ex-parte assessment on account of the assessee’s failure to explain source of both the above unexplained heads. She thereafter chose to file additional evidence before the CIT(A)’s; who sought remand report, which came to be filed on 01.03.2018. Mr. Kulkarni could hardly dispute that the assessee has not been able to explain source of the above twin heads throughout on merits. We thus affirm the learned lower authorities action on all factual aspects.

Faced with this situation, Mr. Kulkarni quoted (2022) 136 taxmann.com 414 (Cal.) PCIT Vs Nopany & Sons that the impugned assessment in absence of a section 143(2) notice is invalid. The same hardly deserved acceptance once it has come on record in light of para 3 in assessment order that the Assessing Officer had indeed issued him section 143(2) notice dated 31.08.2015 to the assessee. This first and foremost legal argument is rejected.

Learned counsel next contended that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in invoking section 68 and 69 additions herein

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 4th day of October, 2022.