2020 (5) TMI 646 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained income out of undisclosed sources - second statutory appeal - claim of the appellant for assessing the income u/s. 44AD not acceptable - CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee - HELD THAT - As we can see neither assessee filed return u/s 139 or section 148 of the Act and no submission have been made before any of the authority and there is no cooperation on behalf of the assessee. In the matter of Vishnukumar Bhargav vs. ITO ITAT Jaipur 2018 (3) TMI 1864 - ITAT JAIPUR Tribunal has held that if assessee has not produced any evidence in support of his case. In appellate proceeding also, addition was confirmed as supportive evidenced was not submitted by the assessee. In that case, there is no error or illegality in the orders of authorities below. Thus, in parity with the above said order and it appears from the conduct of assessee that he is not serious about his case and we do not have any cooperation from the assessee. Thus, we confirm the action of the ld. CIT(A) as we did not have any assistance from the assessee in the present case. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of ?95,50,000/- on sale proceeds of immovable property.
2. Addition of ?5,50,000/- on purchase and sale of shares.
3. Addition of ?9,96,412/- on commission income.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the addition of ?95,50,000/- to the assessee's income from the sale of immovable property. The assessing authority had added the entire sale proceeds without considering the cost of the property sold. The appellant argued that the addition was against natural justice and should be deleted. However, as the appellant failed to provide supporting details or documents despite multiple opportunities, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition as unexplained income from undisclosed sources.

2. Regarding the addition of ?5,50,000/- on account of undisclosed share transactions, the appellant did not present any evidence to justify the amount. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to ?5,00,000/- as the assessing officer's addition was deemed arbitrary. The appellant's lack of cooperation and failure to provide necessary information led to the confirmation of the addition by the CIT(A).

3. The third issue pertained to the addition of ?9,96,412/- as commission income without allowing any expenses. The appellant did not submit any facts or evidence to support their case, despite being given multiple opportunities. The CIT(A) upheld the assessing officer's decision due to the appellant's non-compliance and lack of cooperation. The appellant's request to assess income under a specific section was rejected as they had not filed any returns as required by law.

4. The appellant's repeated failure to appear before the authorities, lack of cooperation, and non-submission of required documents resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal found the appellant's behavior indicative of not taking the case seriously. Citing a previous judgment, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the importance of providing evidence to support one's case. The lack of assistance from the appellant led to the confirmation of the additions made by the assessing officer.

5. Ultimately, due to the appellant's consistent non-compliance, lack of cooperation, and failure to provide necessary evidence or submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The judgment was pronounced on 19-02-2020 in an open court session.