The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Objections raised by assessee regarding report of DVO not justified, taking into consideration the submission in the first appellate proceedings.
The sole issue raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO under Section 69B of the Act.
The tribunal noted that the appeal was filed on 21-10-2020 and the Registry intimated the date of hearing on 13-06-2022 vide notice dated 23-05-2022. On perusal of the order sheet, we note that, non-appeared on the behalf of the assessee and accordingly, the appeal adjourned to 01-08-2022. Likewise, the appeal adjourned from 01-08-2022 to 16-08-2023, wherein, on all the 20 proceedings non-appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, it clearly shows that the assessee has no interest to prosecute this appeal. On 16-08-2023, the assessee called absent and set ex-parte. Therefore, the tribunal proceeded to dispose off the appeal by hearing the DR and perusing the material available on record.
The assessee reiterated the same submission made in the assessment proceedings before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) discussed the issue in detail and confirmed the order of AO under Section 69B of the Act. According to the CIT(A), that the DVO conducted reference proceedings by physical inspection of the properties along with the representatives of the assessee on 24-09-2013.
Further, the method adopted by the DVO by comparing the same instances after giving due consideration for various factors influencing the value of the said properties. Further, he he the objections raised by the assessee regarding the DVO’s report was not justified and uphe the order of AO taking into consideration the DVO’s report as well as the submissions of the assessee in the First Appellate proceedings.
After hearing both the parties, the two member bench of the tribunal consisting of R.S. Syal (Vice President) and S.S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial member) found no submissions or evidences in support of the claim of assessee filed before the Tribunal and inspite of having received notices for 20 proceedings, there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, having no alternative except to confirm the order of CIT(A), the bench found no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it was upheld. Thus the appeal was dismissed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
