2014 (6) TMI 634 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69 of the Act Unexplained investment in house property Held that - The present whereabouts of the assessee were not known along with notice u/s 142(1) dated 03-12-2007 were issued to the assessee at the residence premises at Tulip Bangalow of which assessee is the owner - no-body attended nor any written communication in the matter by the assessee either on the date so fixed or thereafter - notices issued by RPAD and speed post in question have yet not been received back un-served till date of order. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the fact that notice for today s hearing was sent to him on the address mentioned by the assessee in form no. 36 the assessee has failed to avail the opportunity granted while restoring the matter to the file of AO in the first inning of litigation - Despite several opportunities given by AO and Ld. CIT(A) assessee has not offered any explanation in respect of on money of Rs. 4,78,750/- paid by him to the Tulip Bungalows for acquiring the Bungalow No. 11 in Tulip Bungalows Scheme and therefore addition made by AO of Rs. 4,78,750/- towards payment of on money u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment in his property which has been sustained by CIT(A) is hereby upheld Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 30-08-2010
- Addition of Rs. 478750/- under section 69 of the Act
- Failure of the assessee to attend hearings and respond to notices

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 30-08-2010. The assessee raised grounds stating that the order was illegal and against equity and justice. The primary issue was the addition of Rs. 478750/- under section 69 of the Act, related to unexplained investment in a house property. The case originated from a search conducted at the premises of M/s. Desai Brothers and Associates, leading to the reopening of the assessee's case based on the builder's statement. The AO noted that the builder admitted receiving 60% payment by cheque and 40% in cash as 'on money' for the bungalow. Despite opportunities for cross-examination and submission of evidence, the assessee failed to attend the hearings, leading to the AO finalizing the assessment under section 144 of the Act.

2. The matter went before the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad, which directed the AO to afford the assessee an opportunity, warning that failure to attend could lead to adverse inferences. Subsequently, multiple notices were issued to the assessee, but they remained unattended. The AO concluded that the assessee intentionally avoided availing opportunities, leading to the finalization of the assessment under section 144 of the Act. The AO upheld the addition of Rs. 478750/- as unexplained investment, which was affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the first appellate proceedings.

3. In the second appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee continued to seek adjournments and failed to appear, resulting in the confirmation of the AO's action. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that repeated opportunities were provided to the assessee, but no response was received. The addition of Rs. 478750/- towards 'on money' was upheld based on the evidence and lack of explanation from the assessee. Despite further chances given by the AO and Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not offer any explanations, leading to the upholding of the addition.

4. Ultimately, the appeal before the ITAT was dismissed as the assessee failed to avail the opportunities granted during the proceedings. The non-appearance of the assessee, despite multiple notices and chances to explain the unexplained investment, led to the upholding of the addition of Rs. 478750/- under section 69 of the Act. The ITAT concurred with the lower authorities' decisions, emphasizing the assessee's failure to participate in the proceedings and provide justifications for the investment.