ASIF ABDUL SATTAR KHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. CIT 24, MUMBAI

It was noted that none appeared and nor any application for adjournment was moved on behalf of the assessee, although on the earlier date of hearing, today’s date of hearing was duly noted by the representative of the assessee.

In terms of Rule 25 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, the appeal of the assessee is being disposed off exparte qua the appellant and after hearing learned DR on merits.

In terms of material on record, it is noticeable that the assessee is engaged in proprietary business of sales and service in air conditioners under the name and style of M/s.Global Aircon. For the assessment year under consideration, assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.6,12,810/- which was subject to scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 07/03/2015 whereby the total income has been assessed at Rs.27,73,010/-. Subsequently, the Commissioner has invoked his revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and show-caused the assessee to explain as to why the assessment order dated 07/03/2015 (supra) be not treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue in as much as it has been passed without looking at the genuineness of the loan transactions

In response, the assessee furnished the explanation which has been reproduced by the Commissioner in para 2 of his order. Not been satisfied with his explanation, the Commissioner set aside the Assessment Order and directed the Assessing Officer to re-assess the income of the assessee after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and following due procedure of law. Against such decision of the Commissioner, assessee is in appeal before us.

Notably, before us assessee has not put-in any explanation as to how the Commissioner was wrong in exercising his revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. Even in the Grounds of appeal filed alongwith Memo of appeal before us, no specific infirmity has been pointed out except making generalised explanations. The learned CIT DR has also emphasised that neither the genuineness of the loan transaction and nor its utilisation has been examined as to whether it is for the purpose of business.

Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any cogent material to the contrary, we hereby affirm the decision of the Commissioner and thus, assessee fails in its appeal.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.