DIPTI N. KHEMANI,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O. 25(3)(2), MUMBAI

The only issue in the appeal of the Assessee is that the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in law in upholding the assessment of capital gains as income from other sources. From the order sheet we find that several 2 Dipti N Khemani 26.02.2015 till 29.02.2016, there was no representation by the Assessee when the matter posted on several days except on 16.09.2015 where the matter could not be heard for want of time and on 21.07.2016 where the Bench did not function on that day. Inspite of issue of notices by registered post acknowledgement due fixing the date of hearing on 28.03.2016, the notices returned unserved with an endorsement that the notice was unclaimed. Similarly the notice issued fixing the date of hearing on 29.12.2016 was returned unserved with an endorsement that the Assessee is left. Therefore, since the Assessee is not appearing, we heard the Ld. DR and dispose of this appeal on merits.

The Ld. DR submits that the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment on 06.12.2011 u/s 143(3) of the Act noticed that as per the AIR information Assessee has purchased immovable property for Rs.36,51,000/-. The Assessee was required to submit the details along with source of investment. The Assessee through authorized representative by letter dated 03.10.2011 submitted certain details but to the query of purchase of property the Assessee denied to have purchased the said property. The Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 133(6) to the Joint Sub