JALARAM COTTEX,,JASDAN vs. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CIR.-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Rajkot (in short referred to as CIT(A)), dated 27.02.2017 pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09 under section 250(6) Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short).

At the time of hearing, neither the assessee nor any of its representative came present before us. In fact the assessee has not authorized any advocate to represent his case before us since the records reveal no power of attorney filed by the assessee. It is further noticed that the appeal of the assessee was instituted way back on 18.5.2017 and thereafter, the case of the assessee was 2 listed on four occasions, but on none of the occasions, the assessee attended the hearing. Notice sent on 19.10.2022 by RPAD post to the assessee was returned by the postal authority with the remark “left”. On 16-12-2022 the notice was served by the Department by affixture and evidence filed before us. The assessee has not intimated the Registry about change of address if any. Even in appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee, we have noted, remained unrepresented. In this view of the matter, it is evident that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal, and accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal ex parte.

The grounds raised

There are two issues involved in the appeal of the assessee viz. validity of the reopening of the assessment and making addition of Rs.58,58,913/- in respect of difference of valuation of the property.

So far as first issue regarding validity of reopening of the assessment is concerned, we find that the ld.AO has dealt with the 3 objection of the assessee to the reopening of the case u/s 147 of the Act at para-3 of his order. After considering the reply of the assessee the ld.AO held that the reassessment proceedings were proper and in conformity with law. The AO’s finding to this effect reads as under: “3. On receipt of notice u/s.148, assessee vide reply dated 26-03-2012 strongly contend that the re-assessment proceedings for the aforesaid year is not justifiable in law and is without jurisdiction. However, it is stated that the returns filed u/s.!39(l) vide ack. No.44939370300908 dated 30-09-2008 may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act. Reply to the objections raised was given to the assessee vide this office letter dated 22-06-2012 as under: "The undersigned has gone through the letter filed by you. As per this letter you have objected to reassessment proceedings on the basis that notice u/s 148 is not justifiable in law and is without jurisdiction. These objections are very general and routine in nature- without pointing out any specific objection to the reassessment proceedings. Still reply to your objection is as follows: 1) It is to be noted that notice u/s 148 was issued on 2/3/2012 and served on 4/3/2012 after recording reasons for reopening the case. The reasons recorded for reopening the case have been served to you along with the notice u/s 148. As the case pertains to A. Y. 2008-09, the notice has been issued within 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. 2) It has also to be mentioned that reasons recorded for reopening furnished to your good self earlier are well founded on facts and on the basis of new information received. So the satisfaction of AO was proper and based on relevant information. 3) Hence it is submitted that reassessment proceedings are proper and in conformity in law well. Your objections to the notice u/s 148 are disposed off herewith. Further cooperation from your side in the ongoing reassessment proceedings is requested as it is a time barring matter. You are therefore required to appear before me in person or through authorized representative to discuss the case on 2/7/2012 at 11 a.m. and this should also be treated as notice u/s 143(2). "

So far as second issue relating to the merits of the case against addition of Rs.58,58,913/- made on account of difference in the value of assets declared by the assessee and the value of the same as per the DVO’s report, the assessee raised objections against the 4 valuation of the DVO which was forwarded to the DVO but the DVO while rejecting the objection, confirmed the valuation so worked out. Accordingly, the AO added the same to the total income of the assessee-firm as unexplained investment. The reply of the DVO and conclusion of the AO in this regard are as under:

Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee had been issued with various notices by the ld.CIT(A) for hearing of its appeal. However, in none of the occasions, the assessee remained present before the appellate authority. The ld.CIT(A) has noticed this fact in his impugned order about various notices being issued to the assessee which was recorded in tabular form at page no.9 in the impugned order as under:

Before the Ld.CIT(A), in the absence of any explanation or details from the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) found merit in the action of the AO for making addition of Rs.58,58,913/-. Against this order, the assessee is now before the Tribunal.

We have heard the ld.DR and perused orders of the Revenue authorities. We find that the ld.AO has made the impugned addition on merit, which was subsequently challenged before the ld.CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.