Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR
ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 15-03-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2010-11 wherein the assessee has raised the following ground of appeal. ‘’1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.77,52,656/- towards alleged unexplained investment to Mutual Fund Units as held and assessed by the AO.
2 SMT. SEEMA RATAN HASRANI VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.55,84,706/- towards alleged undisclosed receipts u/s 159 of I.T. Act, 1961 as held and assessed by the AO. 2.1 During the course of hearing, the Bench noted that the assessee vide his application dated 01-08-2023 prayed for adjournment in the case with following submissions. ‘’This case is fixed for hearing on the day 02-08-2023. The undersigned A/R was occupied in filing of time baring IT returns sand other professional assignments, therefore could not file the paper book and prepared the case. It is humbly prayed to adjourn hearing of the case for any other convenient day after 3-4 weeks.’’ 2.2 However, the ld. DR objected to such adjournment application. 2.3 The Bench taking into consideration the adjournment application of the assessee and the objection of the ld. DR for not granting adjournment in the case for 3-4 weeks does not find appropriate reasons from the side of the ld. AR of the assessee which appears to be a flimsy reason and thus adjournment application of the assessee is rejected. 3.1 Now we come to merit of the case wherein the AO made the additions of Rs.77,52,656/- and Rs.55,84,706/- by observing as under:- ‘’5. Brief facts of the case are that as per the information available with this office the assessee has made investment in purchase of mutual fund units amounting to Rs. 77,52,656/- during the F.Y. 2009- 10. However, no details/information has been filed by him till date.
3 SMT. SEEMA RATAN HASRANI VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR Since the assessee has failed to discharge her onus of proving the source of such investment, therefore, investment made in purchase of mutual fund units amounting to Rs. 77,52,656/- are remained unexplained. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I have no other alternative but to add a sum of Rs. 77,52,656/- into the total income of the assessee for tax purposes, being unexplained investment, as no justification for source of such investment was submitted by the assessee despite providing ample opportunities to her.
Apart from above, as per information available with this office, the assessee has received receipts of Rs. 55,84,706/- u/s 195 during the FY. 2009-10 and the assessee has not filed return of income for the relevant period. I have no other alternative but to add a sum of Rs. 55,84,706/- treated income of the assessee for the year under consideration.’’ It is also noted that the AO passed the ex-parte order as neither the assessee appeared before the AO on the date of hearing for arguing the case nor submitted any reply to counter the additions so made by the AO hereinabove. 3.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by observing as under:- Decision 7. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted submission in the form of Statement of Facts'. After that neither he has replied to hearing notices nor submitted any documentary evidence/information to prove his side. Sufficient and adequate opportunities were afforded to the appellant as indicated at table at page no 1. No reply whatsoever has been submitted by the appellant. Even the assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to non-compliance on the part of the appellant. It can be safely presumed that the appellant is not interested 4 ITA NO.348/JP/2023 SMT. SEEMA RATAN HASRANI VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR in pursuing his appeal. Therefore, the undersigned sees no reason to interfere with the orders of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the appeal raised by the appellant is dismissed.