JAI PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhidated 20.05.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in justifying the reopening the case on borrowed satisfaction without proving service of notice under section 148 of IT Act on the assessee.

2. Without prejudice to ground no. (1) ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal and confirming addition of Rs. 12,06,189/- for the sales made out of genuine purchases, by submitting Income tax Return under deeming provisions of section 44AD of Income Tax Act on total sales achieved.

3 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee individual filed his return of income declaring total income at Rs. 1, 61,190/- for the year under consideration. Thereafter, the revenue was in possession of an information received from the office of REICthat the assessee had sold gems and Jewellery for Rs. 12, 06,189/- vide bill no. 252, dated: 02.04.2010. It is also confirmed in the enquiry of the State Commercial Department that no gems and Jewellery business had been done by the assessee’s firm, i.e. M/s. Konark Impex in its business premises.

4 Based on above information, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee vide dated: 16.04.2015. In response to this neither return of income nor was any other reply ever filed by the assessee. Ultimately, the case of the assessee was assessed Ex-Parte u/s. 144 r.w.s. 143(3) & 147 of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 12, 06,189/- as undisclosed income. The assessee being aggrieved with this order preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee, as the assessee never came forward to attend the hearings before the Ld. CIT (A). The assessee being further aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A) preferred the present appeal before us.