The Ahmedabad bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the addition of Rs. 4.64 crores made under Section due to the assessee’s failure to explain and lack of cooperation.
In this case, the assessee has filed 2 appeals and has challenged the ex-parte orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax [CIT(A)] for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14, respectively.
Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course – Enroll Today
The assessee, filed his income return for AY 2012-13, declaring Rs. 1,90,380. The assessing officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on information from DDIT (Investigation) about high-value transactions of Rs. 2,93,77,960 in Kotak Mahindra Bank and Rs. 2,17,69,000 in Development Credit Bank, which were not disclosed.
Even after the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued, the assessee did not file a return but only sought repeated adjournments. The AO obtained bank details under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act and added Rs. 4.64 crores as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course – Enroll Today
The assessee had appealed before CIT(A), and it had granted 10 hearing opportunities. The assessee sought adjournments four times but failed to submit any materials or evidence, leading to ex-parte orders.
The ITAT noted that this indicated the assessee’s lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.
The ITAT noted that it was the 10th time that the appeal was listed and no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The bench observed that so far the assessee has neither appointed an authorized representative nor not spelt out any reason for seeking adjournment in spite of service of notices.
Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course – Enroll Today
It is to be noted that in its appeal before the ITAT, the assessee has not produced any additional evidence, except the grounds of appeal.
The ITAT further observed that “even before this Tribunal, appeals were filed within the statutory period of limitation. The assessee has not chosen to file any evidence/document in support of the grounds raised before us on the addition made u/s. 69A of the Act. But time and again repeated adjournments were sought by the assessee without assigning any valid reasons. Thus, the request of adjournment is hereby rejected.”
Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course – Enroll Today
The ITAT upheld the orders of the lower authorities due to the failure of the assessee to submit any evidence or details.
The ITAT, comprising Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President) and TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member) dismissed the assessee’s appeal.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
