M/S. ARUN SHINDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,79,57,720/- u/s 69 of the I. T. Act, 1961. For this and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the CIT (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer may be vacated and the appellant's claim may be allowed or any suitable directions issued.

2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”

3. When the matter had come up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice, therefore, we proceed to decide the issue after hearing the ld. Sr. DR.

4. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of sale & purchase of lands. No return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 was filed. However, the Assessing Officer, on receipt of the information from the Director of Investigation that the appellant had credits in his bank account with ICICI Bank Ltd., Kothrud Branch, A/c No.003901553023 to the extent of Rs.1,79,57,720/-, formed an opinion that the income escaped assessment and, accordingly, issued notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on 14.03.2014. In response to the said notice u/s 148, no return of income was filed by the assessee. Subsequently, there was no response even to the notices issued u/s 142(1) by the Assessing Officer. In these circumstances, the Assessing Officer was constrained to pass an ex-parte assessment u/s 144 of the Act bringing to tax credits of Rs.1,79,57,720/- appearing in the bank