MOHITA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(1), JAIPUR

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.02.2023 of ld. CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under section 250 of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee has raised the following grounds :-

“1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing appeal. 2. That the learned CIT (A), while deciding the appeal of the assessee has failed to apply the provision of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act when he simply disposed of the appeal ex- parte without disposing of the grounds raised before him, and as such, same is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.

3. That on facts and In law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have decided appeal on merits instead of dismissing the appeal for non-attendance.

4. That the learned CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the judicial pronouncement of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. reported in 74 ITD 339, wherein it has been held that, section 250(6) is obligatory for CIT (A) and thus CIT (A) should pass a speaking order stating points raised in appeal, his reasons thereon and reasons for such decisions. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the additions of Rs.7,25,000/- and treating the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act by the Ld. AO, based upon suspicions and surmises. 6. That the appellant-assessee carves leave to add to and or alter and or modify any ground or grounds before and/or during the hearing of the appeal.”

Therefore, in the absence of assessee as well as her authorized representative, the application for seeking adjournment was dismissed. One of the facts, while rejecting the application for adjournment was that assessee had always remained negligent and non cooperative as the assessment order in this case was passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the IT Act, 1961, as the assessee has failed to furnish her return of income in response to notice under section 148 and has not furnished written submissions before the AO. Even assessee was absent before the ld. CIT (A) and the specific finding in the order of the ld. CIT (A) is that assessee always remained non cooperative during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, in our view, these factual circumstances are enough to draw inference that assessee is not interested in pursuing the present appeal before us. Therefore, the adjournment application moved by the assessee was rejected.

2010-11 relevant for assessment year 2011-12 and after obtaining prior approval of the ld. PCIT, issued notice under section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 on 27.03.2018 to the assessee, giving an opportunity to explain the source of investment in purchase of immovable property of Rs. 7,25,000/- during the year under consideration. But the assessee has not complied with the notice. In the absence of any response from the assessee, show cause notice under section 147/144 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 03.10.2018 was issued to the assessee. However, in compliance to the same, neither the assessee appeared nor filed any written submission. The AO, therefore, finding no alternative completed the assessment under section 147/144 of the IT Act, 1961 treating that the assessee has made investment out of unexplained source for purchase of immovable property for Rs. 7,25,000/- thereby added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained investment under section 69 of the IT Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals), who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee after detailed discussion and observing that assessee being non-responsive could not bring on record any specific submissions/detailed submissions in support of her case.

“ 6. From the above detailed discussion, as made by the A.O. in the assessment order, it is clear that appellant is completely non- responsive and could not make any submissions during the pendency of the assessment proceedings before the AO thereby, resulting in treating the investment of appellant in immovable property during the year as unexplained in the hands of the assessee warranting for addition of same as per I.T. Act as rightly made by the A.O. During the pendency of this appeal proceedings also, appellant could not bring on record any specific submissions/detailed submissions explaining the source of such investments as made by the appellant during this A.Y. to the extent of Rs. 7,25,000/-. Appellant merely filed one adjournment letter on 23.02.2021 and thereafter, chose to be non- responsive. Even for the latest notices issued after sufficient time gap also, appellant could not bring out any further submissions for this long pending appeal since 26.06.2019 and accordingly, could not make any substantiation in support of the grounds of appeal so as to reconcile the unexplainable source of investment as made by the appellant during this assessment year. Considering the same, appellant’s grounds of appeal against the addition made in the assessment order

5 Mohita Sharma, Jaipur. dated 19.11.2018 u/s 69 of I.T. Act stands unverifiable and unexplained as per the provisions of I.T. Act. Accordingly, the assessment order dated 19.11.2018 passed by AO needs to be sustained and thereby appellant fails to succeed in the appeal filed against the AO. In the light of these findings/observations, appellant’s appeal is dismissed.”

Before us also, the assessee has neither appeared nor filed any written submissions for consideration. Therefore, in the absence of written submissions and considering the observations of the ld. CIT (A) hereinabove, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A). The same is upheld. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 7/06/2023.