Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI B.R BASKARAN & SHRI LALIET KUMAR GADALE
O R D E R PER BENCH
All these appeals have been filed by the respective assessees and they relate to the years mentioned in the cause title above. Out of the above, the appeal filed by M/s Jain Farms P Ltd for assessment year 2008-09 and 2011-12 and numbered as & 1015/2016/Bang/16 respectively are directed against the revision order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT, Bangalore. The remaining appeals are directed against the appellate orders passed by Ld CIT(A) against the quantum assessment orders in the hands of both the assessees herein.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee, even though the notice of hearing was sent by registered post on more than one occasion to the assessee. Hence we proceed to dispose of the appeals ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.
We shall first take up the appeals relating to quantum assessment proceedings filed both the parties. Since the assessments have been completed in the hands of both the assessees on common set of facts, all the appeals are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience.
We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. Both the assessees herein are engaged in the business of farm land purchase, development and sales. Both the assessees had filed original return of income for all the years under consideration. The revenue carried out survey operations u/s 133A of the Act on 02-01-2013 in the hands of both the assessees herein and consequent thereto, the assessment years under consideration were reopened by issuing notices u/s 148 of the Act. The assessing officer completed the reopened assessments in the hands of both the assessees for all the years under consideration by making certain additions for want of evidences. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same in all the years and hence both the parties have filed appeals before us.
We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has confirmed the additions by observing that the assessees have failed to prove the expenses claimed by it. There should not be any dispute that the responsibility to prove the claim of expenditure is placed upon the assessee and according to the tax authorities, the assessees have filed to prove the same with cogent evidences. In the grounds of appeal, it is stated that the Ld CIT(A) has refused to admit additional evidences and the same is in violation of Rule 46A of the I T Rules. However, we notice from the orders of Ld CIT(A) that the first appellate authority has duly forwarded the additional evidences to the assessing officer seeking remand report and the AO has also given remand report, meaning thereby, the Ld CIT(A) has taken a conscious decision on the additional evidences furnished by the assessee.
6. Before us, no material was placed to contradict the findings given by Ld CIT(A) and hence we do not have any reason to interfere with the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) in the hands of both the assessees for all the years under consideration.
We shall now take up the appeals filed by M/s Jain Farms Private Limited for assessment year 2008-09 and 2011-12 challenging the revision orders passed by Ld Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act. Before us, no material was placed by the assessee to show that the revision order passed by Ld Pr. CIT is contrary to law. Hence we do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.