TEJ KUNWAR,INDORE vs. ITO 1(1), INDORE

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the contention of the Assessing Officer in reopening the case under section 147 of the Income tax Act merely based on the Department Valuer report without appreciating that no incrementing material

Page 1 of 4 AY 2018-19 was found during the course of Survey proceedings. The Appellant prays that the impugned proceedings is bad in law and directed to be quashed. 2.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made u/s 69B of the Act by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 16,42,658 on the alleged ground of difference in value of investment as per the Department Valuation and the amount of investment declared by the Appellant. The Appellant prays that the said addition is unwarranted and uncalled for and without basis be directed to be deleted. 3.The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter any or all the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

2. When the case is called, none appeared on behalf of assessee/ appellant but, however, an application seeking adjournment is filed by CA Pankaj Shah, Ld. AR for assessee. It is stated in adjournment-application that the arguing counsel is not keeping well but the application is not supported by any evidence. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for revenue/respondent is available and ready for submissions. In view of this, the adjournment is declined, hearing is proceeded and the present appeal is being disposed of after considering the material available on record and submissions of Ld. DR for revenue/respondent.

3. On perusal of case file with the able assistance of Ld. DR for revenue, it is found that the AO has made an addition of Rs. 16,42,658/- on account of unexplained investment in construction for lack of documentary evidences on the part of assessee although the AO has noted participation of assessee in assessment-proceedings. Further, the CIT(A) has also dismissed assessee’s first-appeal by passing following order:

“5. Ground Nos. 1 to 3:-

Page 2 of 4 AY 2018-19 Through these grounds, the appellant contended that the AO made the addition to the total income on account of unexplained investment, however such investment was not made during the year under consideration. 5.1 The core question in the instant appeal is whether the AO was justified in making addition to the tune of Rs. 16,42,658/-. The undersigned has considered the written submission made by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings. It is noticed from the assessment order that the AO issued notices to the appellant calling for details with respect to the investment made, however, the appellant simply filed the written submission before the AO without any concrete evidence. Thus, the AO in absence of any evidence in support of the contention of the appellant, made the addition to the extent of the investment. The appellant against such addition, preferred the instant appeal 5.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant was issued notices fixing the hearing. The appellant has submitted the written submission arguing the same contention which was done before the AO. The appellant did not submit any concrete evidence in support of his grounds of appeal

. Whenever any appeal is filed before the appellate authority, it is the duty of the appellant to file the evidences in support of the claim. The appellant did not file any evidence in support of his claim. 5.3 The AO has made the addition in absence of any documentary evidence which was called for by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The appellant had opportunity to press his points before the undersigned on the basis of documentary evidences. The appellant simply filed the written submission which was not supported by any evidence. Therefore, in this circumstances, the claim of the appellant cannot be treated as valid. 5.4 In view of the above, the undersigned is of view that as the appellant failed to furnish the documentary evidence before the AO as well as before the undersigned, the grounds raised by the appellant cannot be considered to be genuine. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances, the ground No. 1 to 3 filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.

6. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.”

4. The orders of lower-authorities were deliberated and finally it was thought fit to give one more opportunity to assessee in the interest of justice

Page 3 of 4 afresh. Ld. DR for revenue does not have any objection against remand. We therefore remand this case to AO. The AO shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an appropriate order uninfluenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by AO and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Order pronounced by putting up on notice board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 22/12/2025