Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI PRAMOD M. JAGTAP&
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the ITO, Ward-2(1)(3), Ahmedabad under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2011-12 with the following grounds: “
1. The learned CIT(A) had erred in confirming the assessment made by A.O. which is bad in laws since mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued by A.O.
2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by A.O. u/s 69A of the Act of 52,58,000 being Cash deposited in bank A/c. In as much as, the complete source with evidence have been explained.
3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of A.O. in treating the return filed u/s 148 as nonest.
4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming charging of interest by A.O. u/s 234A, B and C.”
Hysafe Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 - 2 - 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of call. It further appears from the records that the matter was taken up on number of occasions almost in eight times wherein none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent the appeal. However, having no other alternative proceeding to the issue involved in this matter.
Ground No.1:- The first ground relates to the maintainability of the assessment proceeding in the absence of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act issued by the Ld. AO.
At the time of hearing of the matter the Ld. D.R. submitted before us that in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act issued on 16.03.2015 which was duly served upon the assessee. No return of income through e-filing was made by the assessee. Instead a paper return of income has been filed and stated to have been considered in response to the said notice under Section 148 of the Act. Subsequently, appellant filed a return on 09.09.2015 through electronic media which was also beyond the prescribed time and thus, rightly treated as non-est in the eye of law. Finally having no other alternative the Ld. AO proceeded to assess the income under Section 144 of the Act.
In view of the above fact the Ld. D.R. submitted before us that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not mandatory. We find force in such submission made by the Ld. A.R. and in the absence of any contrary submission made by the assessee before us we find no merit in the grounds preferred by the assessee. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
Hysafe Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 - 3 - 6. Ground No.2:- The confirmation of disallowance made under Section 69A of the Act to the tune of Rs. 52,58,000/- being cash deposited in the bank account is the subject matter before us.
The assessee was found to be owner of the above amount which was not recorded in the books of account maintained by it, neither the source of income against the same was offered by the assessee. In the absence of any explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of said money and the explanation offered by the assessee since not found satisfactory the cash of Rs. 52,58,000/- has been added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money in accordance with Section 69A of the Act which was further confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).
Upon perusal of the order passed by both the authorities below we do not find any infirmity therein; neither any contrary facts and/or evidences have been brought to our notice by the assessee. Hence, having no other alternative we confirm the order passed by the Revenue. The assessee’s appeal is, thus, dismissed.