2023 (1) TMI 27 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - jurisdictional ground for reopening u/s 148 - unexplained investment - HELD THAT - In factual position the assessee has already transacted the share/mutual funds in amounts for relevant financial year. In quantum assessment the assessee had not contradicted the transaction amount with ld. AO. AO has correctly calculated the investment part in share amount of Rs. 5 lacs. Further, during the year the assessee had liquidated the investment and had incurred the STGC amount of Rs.2 lacs. The source of investment amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is remained unexplained before the bench. We find no infirmity in the order of the ld. AO. Assessee had not able to submit any contradictory fact or any calculation against the order of the ld. AO. CIT(A) has discussed both the legal and factual issue in the order. We are not intervening in the order of the revenue authorities in this stage. Accordingly, the addition made by the assessing authority is upheld. Appeal of assessee dismissed.

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Reopening of assessment under section 148.
3. Challenge of assessment order by the assessee.
4. Ex-parte disposal of appeal due to absence of the assessee.
5. Jurisdictional ground for reopening under section 148.
6. Upholding the addition made by the assessing authority.

Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing appeal
The assessee filed an application for the condonation of a 101-day delay, which was not strongly objected to by the Senior DR. The delay was condoned, allowing the appeal to proceed.

Issue 2: Reopening of assessment under section 148
The case was reopened under section 148 based on information regarding investments in shares/mutual funds/RBI Bonds. The assessing officer calculated the investment in shares at Rs. 5 lakh and the short-term capital gain at Rs. 2 lakh, resulting in a total addition of Rs. 7 lakh. The assessee challenged this before the bench, leading to an appeal before the CIT(A) and subsequently to the tribunal.

Issue 3: Challenge of assessment order by the assessee
The CIT(A) upheld the assessing officer's order, leading the aggrieved assessee to file an appeal before the tribunal. However, during the hearing, the assessee was absent, and the appeal was disposed of ex-parte after considering the submissions of the Senior DR and the available records.

Issue 4: Ex-parte disposal of appeal due to absence of the assessee
Despite multiple hearing dates being fixed and the nature of the dispute, the tribunal proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex-parte due to the absence of the assessee, after hearing the Senior DR and reviewing the available material on record.

Issue 5: Jurisdictional ground for reopening under section 148
The jurisdictional ground for the reopening under section 148 was challenged by the assessee, but the CIT(A) upheld the assessing officer's actions, stating that the non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) could not be challenged at that stage. The tribunal found no fault in the assessing officer's decision to reopen the assessment and make the additions.

Issue 6: Upholding the addition made by the assessing authority
The tribunal upheld the addition made by the assessing authority, as the assessee failed to provide contradictory facts or calculations against the assessing officer's order. The CIT(A) had discussed both legal and factual issues, and the tribunal decided not to intervene in the order of the revenue authorities, thereby dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the addition made by the assessing authority, and pronounced the order in open court on 20.12.2022.

← Previous Next →