BALCHANDRA PANDURANG DALVI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 27(1)(2), MUMBAI

. Shri Balachandra Pandurang Dalvi, Mumbai. - 2 - petition. Even on earlier occasion the appeal was fixed for hearing on 26.09.2019 nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly the Bench decided to dispose the appeal after hearing the ld. DR and considering material placed on record.

In this case I found that on receipt information to the effect that assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 26,90,000/- with bank of Borada, the A.O issued notice us/s 147 of the Act to find out the source of cash deposit. The A.O concluded after long discussion that sufficient opportunity was provided to the assessee but assessee has failed to prove the source of cash deposit. The assessee has also alleged framing of assessment without issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act.

By the impugned order the CIT(A) observed that at per para 6 of the assessment order AO asked the assessee to show cause vide order sheet entry dated 15.02.2016 why the cash deposits (subject matter of the assessment and appeal) and in response to the same, the assessee’s AR attended on 22.02.2016 and filed submission vide letter dated 19.02.2016. From the assessment order it is also noted that one Mr. D.D Nanda, the assessee’s counsel again appeared on 02.03.2016 and made submissions and explained the issue. It can therefore be said that there is no truth or force in the assesee’s contention that the A.O has not issued any notices after filing the return in response to notice u/s 148. Ld. AR could not explain how the assessee’s AR appeared without any notice by . Shri Balachandra Pandurang Dalvi, Mumbai. - 3 - the AO. In view of these facts on record and on considering the submissions, the CIT(A) concluded that there is no force in the assessee’s contention and therefore dismiss the ground raised.

After discussing in details, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on account of cash deposit in the bank and also rejected assessee’s ground of not issuing any notice u/s.143(2).

I have gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was duly issued and served on the assessee. As per the findings recorded by the CIT(A), the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared before the A.O on 02.03.2016 and also made submission and explained the issue. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the findings so recorded by the CIT(A) to the effect that notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee. However, nothing was placed before us so as to persuade me to deviate from the finding recorded by the CIT(A).

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.