COUNTRY CLUB INTERNATIONAL,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-AOP filed its return of income on 16.09.2011 showing total income of Rs.5,12,560/- for the assessment year 2010-11. Notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee but the assessee challenged the assessment proceedings on the ground that the notice under section 143(2) was not validly served and on this ground did not comply with the assessment proceedings. The ld. Assessing Officer assumed jurisdiction to scrutinize the return of the assessee. Thereafter notice under section 142(1) was issued and served on the assessee, but the assessee did not make any compliance. Finally, ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 assessing the total income at Rs.15,00,000/- and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals).

The ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has given several opportunities to the assessee to substantiate its claim, but the appellant neither filed the written submission nor represented the case before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Thereafter the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on 22nd November, 2023.

On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT.

At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench that the impugned order be set aside and

At the outset, ld. D.R. brought to my notice that the assessee did not produce the relevant documents as asked by the ld. Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order assessing the taxable income at Rs.15,00,000/- as unexplained. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) has given many opportunities to the assessee and the assessee neither filed written submission nor any evidence before the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals). He further submitted that before the ITAT, the assessee did not substantiate its claim. Therefore, he pleaded to uphold the order passed by the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals).