2020 (2) TMI 1355 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained loans - Non appearance by assessee - HELD THAT - Neither the assessee appeared nor any paper book has been filed. The assessee was, therefore, notified further date of hearing for 05.02.2020 through registered post, but, no evidence is filed and even nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. Assessee did not file any supporting documents of these additions before the authorities below and same is the position before the Tribunal. The authorities below have given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, but, assessee did not produce any evidence in respect of any of the additions. In the absence of any evidence on record and any representation from the side of the assessee, we confirm all the additions and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order passed under section 144
2. Addition of unexplained loans
3. Addition of unexplained sundry creditors
4. Addition of unexplained investment
5. Addition of unexplained cash deposits in bank
6. Compliance with principles of natural justice

Analysis:

Validity of assessment order passed under section 144:
The appeal challenged the assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 144 as being bad in law and void. The assessee contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not holding the assessment order as such. The A.O. proceeded with an ex-parte assessment due to lack of cooperation and absence of documentary evidence from the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide any evidence during the proceedings, leading to the confirmation of all additions made by the A.O. The appeal was dismissed on this ground.

Addition of unexplained loans:
The assessing officer made an addition of &8377; 80,000 for alleged unexplained loans taken by the assessee. The A.O. noted an increase in unsecured loans without any confirmation or documentary evidence. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) confirmed this addition as the assessee failed to produce any evidence to support the claim, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal on this issue.

Addition of unexplained sundry creditors:
Similarly, an addition of &8377; 55,000 was made by the assessing officer on account of alleged unexplained sundry creditors. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) upheld this addition as the assessee did not provide any evidence to substantiate the claim. The appeal was dismissed concerning this addition as well.

Addition of unexplained investment:
The assessing officer added &8377; 44,00,000 on account of alleged unexplained investment based on the balance sheet showing an amount under "Advance against sale of plot." The assessee was unable to prove the source of this amount, leading to the confirmation of the addition by the authorities. The Tribunal upheld this addition due to the lack of evidence provided by the assessee.

Addition of unexplained cash deposits in bank:
An addition of &8377; 56,01,000 was made by the assessing officer for alleged unexplained cash deposits in the bank. The source of the cash deposit was not explained by the assessee, resulting in the confirmation of this addition by the authorities. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on this ground as well.

Compliance with principles of natural justice:
The assessee contended that the orders passed by the assessing officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) were against the principles of natural justice as proper opportunity was not provided. However, the Tribunal observed that despite multiple adjournments and opportunities granted to the assessee, no evidence was produced to support the claims. The appeal was ultimately dismissed due to the lack of evidence and non-appearance of the assessee during the proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal confirmed all the additions made by the assessing officer as the assessee failed to provide any evidence or representation, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

← Previous Next →