Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad, (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 11.01.2016 arising out of the assessment order passed u/s.144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)for the A.Y. 2010-11.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 27.07.2010 declaring total income of Rs.1,56,650/-. In the course of the assessment, the AO had made addition in respect of cash deposited in saving bank account Rs.66,04,800/-, (Kaushik G. Rathod vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2010-11 - 2 – unexplained investments in shares Rs.3,54,31,986/- and profit from contract receipt Rs.2,01,844/- and the assessment was completed at total income of Rs.4,23,95,280/-.
Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which has been decided vide the impugned order. The assessee has taken the following grounds in this appeal:
(1) That on facts and in law, the learned CIT (A) has grievously erred in holding that the return of income was filed by the appellant, whereas, in fact, the return is filed fraudulently by someone else. (2) That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in holding that the Axis. Bank Account at Mumbai is opened by, belonging to, and operated by the appellant. (3) That on facts and evidence on record, it ought to have been held that the said bank account is fraudulently opened and operated in appellant's name by someone else on the basis of forged documents, and the transactions in the said account do not pertain to the appellant. (4) That the learned CIT (A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 66,04,800/- in respect of unexplained cash deposits in the Axis Bank account at Mumbai. (5) That the learned CIT (A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,54,31,986/- in respect of unexplained investments in shares reflected as transactions in the Axis Bank account at Mumbai. (6) That on facts, and in law, the learned CIT (A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,01,844/- in respect of profit on contract receipts.
It is seen from the order sheet noting that assessee was granted 50 opportunities but no compliance was made on his behalf. Shri M. K. Patel, ld. Counsel for the assessee was representing his case earlier. He had filed an adjournment application dated 31.01.2024 informing that the assessee had expired and that time was required to bring the legal heirs on record. The contents of the said letter are reproduced below:
(Kaushik G. Rathod vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2010-11 - 3 –
However, the legal heirs of the assessee were not brought on record and an identical letter for adjournment was again filed by the Ld. counsel on 26.03.2024. Thereafter, vide letter dated 06.05.2024, the ld. Counsel had informed that since the assessee had expired and he was not able to get any instructions from the legal heirs, he requested to permit him to withdraw appearance in this appeal.
(Kaushik G. Rathod vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2010-11 - 4 –
It is seen that in spite of ample opportunities, neither the death certificate of the assessee nor the legal heirs of the assessee has been brought on record in order to file revised Form No.36. We cannot adjudicate the appeal on a dead person, namely, Shri Kaushik G. Rathod. We have allowed sufficient opportunity to the assessee but neither the legal heirs have been brought on record nor the Form No. 36 has been revised. The death of the assessee has been confirmed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee through his various letters before he sought permission to withdraw appearance in this case. In view of these facts, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed for not bringing the legal heirs on record.
In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
This Order pronounced on 07/06/2024
Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 07 /06/2024 S. K. SINHA आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार