Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Chandrakant Patel, purchased various pieces of land in AY 2011-12 but did not file a Return of Income. Consequently, a notice under section 148 was issued for escapement of income. The Assessing Officer made substantial additions to the assessee's income, including amounts received as a confirming party in land sales, interest income, and unexplained share transactions, which were upheld by the CIT(A) due to lack of evidence.
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that the assessee consistently failed to appear for hearings and did not furnish any relevant materials, evidences, or a paper book to substantiate the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Key Issues
Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the additions made by the Assessing Officer concerning income from acting as a confirming party, interest income, and unexplained share transactions; and whether the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to challenge these additions.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 148, 271(1)(c), 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH
Before: DR. BRR Kumar & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar
Chandrakant Patel Income Tax Officer 61, Hanumannagar Ward-3(3)(6), Shopping Centre, Vs Ahmedabad Sonini Chowl Cross Road, Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Gujarat PAN: AKYPP5854D (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: None Revenue Represented: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 24-02-2026 Date of pronouncement : 25-02-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER: T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 11-06-2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12.
Today is the 8th time of hearing of this appeal. The hearing notices sent by the registry was returned unserved with the Postal Remark “No such person” in the address. The assessee has not given proper change of address for service of notice, however Vakalatnama is given in favour of Shri K.C. Thakker Advocate. None appeared in the previous hearings as well as today’s hearing. Even the previous hearings on 26-11-2025 apart from Speed Post notice, email notices were directed to be sent to the email address as shown in form No. 36 as well as in Form No. 35. The same were served and acknowledgement is placed on record. However none appeared on behalf of the assessee.
Brief facts of the case is that the assessee purchased various pieces of lands amounting to Rs.77,75,31,930/- during Asst. Year 2011-12 and not filed the Return of Income. Therefore notice u/s. 148 was issued for escapement of income. The additions made by the assessing officer are as follows: “The assessees contention that he has only acted as a broker on behalf of the buyer group in whose favour the properties have been transferred, is not acceptable as the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence to support his contention. The assessee has received Rs. 26,69,91,624/-as a confirming party in respect of sale of land at Oganaj of different survey numbers as mentioned above. It is further seen that the assessee has not given any evidence of investment as a confirming party as the return of income for the year under consideration has not been filed in compliance to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. On verification of the various sale deeds it is seen that the assessee has in a planned systematic and organized way have sold various adjoining land and thus the transaction in the nature of trade activities. Hence the amount of Rs.26,69,91,624/- received on sale of above mentioned land as confirming party by the assessee is considered as "Income from profit and gains of business" and taxed accordingly. It is pertinent to mention that in the case of his co-broker i.e. Shri Rajesh G. Rajput, the similar addition has been made by the DCIT, Cirle-3(3), Ahmedabad for A.Y.2011-12. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealing particular of income by the assessee. (Addition of Rs.26,96,91,624/-)
Addition on account of Interest Income :- The assessee was specifically asked vide PARA-3 of the questionnaire dated 27.09.2018 to explain the receipts of interest of Rs.45,08,572/- as per 26AS. The assessee vide PARA-3of his submission dated 26.10.2018 has stated that the correct interest figure worked out to Rs.22,54,286/ instead of Rs.45,08,572/- as mentioned in the form-26AS. On verification it is found that the contention of the assessee is correct as the name of parties have been repeated twice. The assessee has received interest from the parties as detailed below; Sr. Name of Party Amount Tax deducted as No. source 1. Jashubhai Bansilal Ode 93370 9337 2. Bhavna Steel 1780645 178065 3. OM Developers 132493 13249 4. M/s.Poonamchand 247778 24778 Devchand Total interest 2254286 As discussed above the assessee has received interest of Rs.22,54,286/- which is not been offered for taxation as no return of income has been filed by the assessee. The assessee's argument that the said interest of Rs.22,54,286/-has never been paid by the parties is not acceptable as no evidence in this regard has been filed by the assessee. Hence the amount of Rs.22,54,286/- is considered as income from other sources and brought to tax. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealing particular of income by the assessee. (Addition of Rs.22,54,286/-) Addition on account of Share transactions The assessee was specifically asked vide PARA-4 of the questionnaire dated 27.09.2018 to explain and furnish the details of demat account for the share transactions of Rs.2,24,60,334/- as per ITS details. The assessee has not given any explanation in his submission filed on 26.10.2018. Thus the details of transaction of share sold/purchased remained unexplained in absence of any documentary any supporting evidences. As the assessee has not given any satisfactory explanation, total transaction amount of Rs.2,24,60,334/ is considered as unexplained as proposed in the show cause notice and added to the total income of the assessee u/s.69 of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealing particular of income by the assessee. (Addition of Rs.2,24,60,334/-)
5. Subject to above remarks total income of the assessee is computed as under: ADD: Amount received as confirming party-business Rs. 26,69,91,624/- Income as discussed above Interest income as discussed above Rs. 22,54,286/- Share Transaction as discussed above Rs. 2,24,60,334/- Assessed Total Income Rs. 29,17,06,244/- Rounded off Rs. 29,17,06,240/-
Aggrieved against the additions, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who considered the submissions of the assessee and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of relevant evidences and details.
Aggrieved against the appellate order, the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal:
1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that there was substance in the AO's contentions in making additions of Rs.26,69,91,624/-, Rs.22,54,286/-and Rs.2,24,60,334/-, thereby not allowing the related Grounds of appeal.
2. The learned CIT(A) has also erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the appellant's grievance that the AO has considered only part of the submissions made before him and has completely disregarded other relevant submissions and documents placed before him, including the record of pending Remand proceedings initiated by the CIT (A) in the appellant's co-broker, Rajeshsingh G. Rajput's case, involving identical facts.
3. The CIT(A) has also erred in law and on facts in disregarding the appellant's request for taking up the appeal in the case of the appellant's co-broker, Rajeshsingh G. Rajput, before deciding the appeal in the appellant's case.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) ought to have deleted the additions of Rs.26,69,91,624/-, Rs.22,54,286/- and Rs.2,24,60,334/-.
5. It is therefore prayed that the additions of Rs.26,69,91,624/-, Rs.22,54,286/- and Rs.2,24,60,334/-may be deleted.
6. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.
It is seen from record the assessee files the appeals at all stages within the due dates but not furnishing relevant materials and evidences. Since there is no representation neither from the assessee as well as from the Authorized Representative and no Paper Book or evidences filed before this Tribunal to adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Therefore the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed.