MANOJ HARKUT HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(5), JAIPUR

ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 13-09-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2014-58 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. That in law and in the facts and in circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(Appeals) grossly erred in passing ex parte assessment order without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard as no notices of the hearing was served properly on the assessee appellant.

2. That on the law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in rejecting Long Term Capital 2 MANOJ HARKUT, HUF VS ITO, WARD 5(5), JAIPUR Gain earned from sale of shares amounting Rs. 37,99,416/- claimed by the assessee appellant as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and erred in adding the same as income from other sources u/s 68 of the Act and also erred in holding that the whole transaction done by the assessee appellant in as a SHAM transaction which is illegal and bad in law. 2.1 That the ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in not sharing evidence/information available with him before making the impugned addition and not providing any opportunity of cross examination which is in gross violation of principle of natural justice. 2.2 That the ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in relying on data/ information/ documents which are wholly unrelated to the shares in which assessee has dealt in and the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer was on assumption and presumption basis which is illegal and bad in law.

3. That on the law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 2,35,965/- by treating the same as unexplained expenditure for acquiring accommodation entry.’’ 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 to 3 of the assessee, it is noted that the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under:- ‘’4.2 in view of the facts of the appellant under consideration and various judicious decisions cited above, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is not willing to pursue the appeal and reserve his only by mere filing of the memo of appeal. Since the appeal has chosen not to respond to the notices issued and sufficient opportunities granted. I am left with no option but to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record. 5. Decision: In view of the above, considering failure of the appellant to make submissions in support of its appeal, the action of the AO is upheld. As a result, the appeal is treated as dismissed.’’