VISHAL KARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(3)(4), MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, J. M.: The Present Appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 31, dated 25.06.2014for A.Y. 2009-10on the following grounds of appeal.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee filed theappeal before CIT(A) and the CIT(A) after considering the case had partly allowed ground No. 3 of assessee’s appeal and dismissed the appealvide its order dated 25.06.2014. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee filed the present appeal before us on the grounds mentioned herein above. 5. At the very outset, it is noticed that even in spite of notices, none has appeared on behalf of assessee and on the perusal of order sheet we have noticed that nobody was appearing on behalf of assessee for the last several dates i.e. 2.03.16, 30.05.16 and 25.07.16. Even on the last date of hearing an application for adjournment was moved and the bench had adjourned the cas for 23.01.17 but even then on this date the assessee has not preferred to appear and even no application for adjournment was moved today. This reflects the casual and callous approach of the assessee. On the other hand Ld. DR is present in the court and is ready with arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR and the material on record. Accordingly the assessee is proceeded ex-parte and the matter is taken up for deciding on merits. Ground No. 1 & 2. 6. Since both the grounds raised

by the assessee are inter-connected and inter- related therefore we thought it fit to dispose off the same through the present common order.

7. We have heard the ld. DR and also perused the documents as well as the orders passed by lower authorities. We found that the Assessing Officer had made additions of Rs. 35,98,000 u/s 68 of the IT Act as the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs. 35,98,000 in his bank account with ICICI bank, Vile Parle Branch Mumbai. Since this order was challenged by assessee before Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties and also considering the additional evidence submitted by the assessee had restricted the additions to Rs.

23,99,550. The Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with this ground in para No. 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 and after analyzing the order of CIT(A), we found that in the present appeal the assessee has challenged the order of CIT(A) by claiming that the income to Rs. 23,99,550 pertains to AOP, however, in this respect, apart from submitting PAN no. of AOP, the assessee has not led any evidence before the revenue authorities. Therefore, in these circumstances, Ld. CIT(A) after considering the computation of taxable income had given a categorical findings that since Assessing Officer could not controvert the amount of net income computed by the assessee in the remand report as the assessee could not prove the existence of the AOP. Therefore, income of Rs. 23,99,550 was rightly held to be taxable in the hands of assessee. Even before us neither assessee the assessee appeared nor any evidence has been led in order to demonstrate that there was existence of AOP or this amount pertains to AOP. No new facts or circumstances have been brought before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings recorded by the CIT(A). Therefore, we see no reason to deviate from or interfere into the findings so recorded by the CIT(A) and hence, we reject these grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and uphold the order of the CIT(A).