9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 976 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition of deposits being commission income - HELD THAT - Tribunal on a number of occasions and the appeal is being adjourned at the request of the assessee. On 11.12.2019 when the case was called for hearing, none appeared for assessee. On perusal of the docket order, it is noticed that the appeal is defective and when the same was pointed out for the assessee who appeared on 12.7.2019, he sought time for rectification of the same. Further on 26.7.19, 14.8.19 and 15.10.19 also the case has been adjourned at the request of the assessee for rectification of the defects. However, the defects have not yet been rectified till date. Since the assessee neither appeared nor rectified defects nor filed any information to substantiate assessee s claim of deposits being commission income, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the AO/CIT(A). Accordingly, assessee s appeal is dismissed.
Issues:
Assessee's appeal against order of Ld.CIT(A)-6 for A.Y. 2014-15. Analysis: The case involved an individual assessee who had not filed any return of income for the relevant assessment year or earlier years. The assessment was reopened based on AIR information, and the assessee admitted a taxable income of ?2,60,600 from commission income after receiving a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed to be engaged in chit business and stated that the commission earned from it was the source of income. However, the assessee failed to provide details regarding the chit business, such as the number of people involved, quantum of chit amount, and relevant receipts. Consequently, the Assessing Officer treated the entire deposits of ?35,85,400 as unexplained income and brought it to tax. The assessee, aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) but did not appear for the proceedings. As a result, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, the assessee approached the Tribunal by filing a second appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision. However, the Tribunal noted that the case had been adjourned multiple times at the request of the assessee for rectification of defects in the appeal. Despite several adjournments, the assessee failed to rectify the defects or provide any information to support the claim that the deposits were commission income from the chit business. Due to the non-appearance of the assessee and the failure to rectify the defects, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the AO/CIT(A) and consequently dismissed the assessee's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to dismiss the assessee's appeal, emphasizing the lack of cooperation from the assessee in rectifying the defects in the appeal and providing necessary information to substantiate the claim of deposits being commission income. The order was pronounced in Open Court on 31st January 2020.
|
