SUMEET VIJAY PAWAR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD -3(3), PUNE

ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: These assessee’s three appeals for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 arise against the CIT(A)-3, Pune’s as many orders; all dated 22.05.2019, passed in cases nos.PN/CIT(A)-3/ITO Wd.3(2)/333/18-19/91, PN/CIT(A)-3/ITO Wd.3(2)/332/18-19/92 and PN/CIT(A)-3/ITO Wd.3(2)/331/18-19/93; respectively in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2 to 166/PUN/2022 2. Delay of 963 days each in all these three appeals filed on 10.03.2022, stands condoned since majority of the prescribed period of limitation falls in Covid-19 Pandemic outbreak only. 3. The assessee’s identical twin substantive ground raised in all these three appeals seek to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action assessing him for professional/technical receipts as well as treating cash deposits made in his bank accounts as unexplained; involving varying sum(s), respectively.

4. It is noted with the able assistance coming from the Revenue’s side in lead appeal ITA No.164/PUN/2022 that this assessee runs a proprietary concern under the name and style of “M/s. Expert Services” executing industrial safety consultancy(ies) and turnkey projects. Both the learned lower authorities inter alia added 15% of the contract receipts, 50% of professional/technical receipts and similar 50% of balance receipts; coming to Rs.81,527/-, Rs.7,24,420/- and Rs.3,57,416/-; respectively on estimation basis. There is no rebuttal coming to correctness thereof from the assessee’s side. Nor has he placed on record all the corresponding details regarding the expenditure in issue. Face with this situation, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned addition(s) in all these three assessment years.