Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT(A) upholding an addition made by the AO. The AO made an addition of Rs. 4,14,246/- under section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny after a search action. The assessment order was passed under section 143(3) of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal noted that neither the assessee nor their representative attended the hearing, nor was an adjournment application filed. Inferring that the assessee was not keen to pursue the appeal, and considering the orders of the authorities below which justified the addition and were upheld by the CIT(A) after considering the assessee's submissions, the Tribunal found no infirmity.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of unexplained expenditure under section 69C is justified and whether the assessee is liable for interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69C, 132, 234A, 234B, 234C, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated 23.10.2025 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal, CIT(A) 54, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 08.02.2025 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2023-24. P a g e | 2 Mum 2025 A.Y. 2023-24 Mohd. Israil Haji Mohd Hanif Sheikh, Nagpur 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
1) The order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai u/s 250 of IT Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2) The Learned CIT(A) ought to have allowed the appeal of assessee considering the submission reproduced in the appellate order. 3) The addition made by A.O. at Rs.4,14,246/- u/s 69C of I.T. Act 1961 and upheld by CIT(A) on account of alleged computed interest on notional working is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 4) The addition made by A.O. at Rs.4,14,246/- u/s 69C of I.T. Act 1961 and upheld by CIT(A) on account of alleged computed interest on notional working is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 5) The learned A.O. erred in making addition at Rs.4,14,246/-u/s 69C of I.T. Act 1961 and upheld by CIT(A) in the absence of any legal evidence on record to demonstrate that assessee has paid interest. 6) In the absence of any evidence found in the course of search at the premises of assessee and lender in respect to any interest paid, addition as made by A.O. ought not to have been made and CIT(A) ought not have upheld the same. 7) The assessee denies liability to be assessed to interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.
Brief facts of the case are that the assesseefiled the return of income declaring total income at Rs. 5,28,690/-. Subsequently, search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of the assessee in connection with search action carried out in the case of Shri Ravi Omprakash Agrawal and related entities on 10.05.2023. Consequent to search action, assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and order Mum 2025 A.Y. 2023-24 Mohd. Israil Haji Mohd Hanif Sheikh, Nagpur u/s.143(3) was passed assessing the total income at Rs. 11,42,936/- after making addition of Rs.4,14,246/- u/s.69C of the Act. The issue in hand is the above addition of unexplained expenditure of which was upheld by the ld.CIT(A) after due deliberation and taking into account the assessment order.
It may be stated here that when the case was called for hearing by the Bench, none attended. No adjournment application was also filed. In such a situation, it can be inferred that the assessee is not keen to pursue the appeal in right earnest. It is the duty of the assessee to adhere to the notices issued to it especially when such notices are issued so as to allow sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee to buttress its case, following the principles of natural justice. We have perused the orders of the authorities below justifying the addition made. The ld.CIT(A) has duly taken into consideration detailed submissions of the assessee before dismissing the appeal on merits. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the appellate which is upheld and consequently, the grounds of appeal as also the appeal of the assessee are dismissed in limine for non prosecution.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Mum 2025 A.Y. 2023-24 Mohd. Israil Haji Mohd Hanif Sheikh, Nagpur Order pronounced in the open court on 09/03/2026. SANDEEP GOSAIN PRABHASH SHANKAR (न्यातयक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)