2023 (1) TMI 856 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of the reopening of the assessment - addition of difference of valuation of the property - HELD THAT - Reasons recorded for reopening furnished to your good self earlier are well founded on facts and on the basis of new information received. So the satisfaction of AO was proper and based on relevant information. Addition made on account of difference in the value of assets declared by the assessee and the value of the same as per the DVO s report - There was no contest on behalf of the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) despite several opportunities being given to the assessee, as noted by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned and mentioned by us above. Even in further appeal before the Tribunal, as order-sheet reveals the assessee has been given as many as five opportunities to prosecute its appeals, but all the while, the assessee remained absent and did not participate in the proceedings before us, despite service of notices. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee except coming forward to file appeals before the appropriate authorities, is not interested in following up with its matter. We also find that the authorities below have given concurrent finding of fact and on that basis the ld.CIT(A) maintained the addition made by the AO. In the absence of any representation from the assessee, and in the absence of any material on record to support the case of the assessee, the concurrent findings of the authorities below remain uncontroverted before us. The order of the ld.CIT(A) upholding the validity of the assessment framed u/s 147 and also the addition made on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act, accordingly calls for no interference. Assessee appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of reopening of the assessment.
2. Addition of Rs.58,58,913/- in respect of difference of valuation of the property.

Validity of Reopening of the Assessment:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Rajkot, pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09 under section 250(6) Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not appear during the proceedings, indicating lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 147 of the Act, and the Assessing Officer (AO) found them proper and in conformity with the law. The AO's decision was based on the notice issued within the prescribed time frame and the satisfaction of the AO regarding the validity of the reassessment. The objections raised by the assessee were considered but not found to be specific enough to challenge the reassessment. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment under section 147, as the assessee failed to provide any substantial evidence or representation to contest the reassessment.

Addition of Rs.58,58,913/- in Respect of Difference of Valuation of the Property:
The second issue revolved around the addition of Rs.58,58,913/- made by the AO due to the difference in valuation of assets declared by the assessee and the valuation by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO). The DVO confirmed the valuation after rejecting the objections raised by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the objections raised by the assessee were general and routine, lacking merit. The AO added the difference in valuation to the total income of the assessee as unexplained investment. The Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide any substantial explanation or participate in the proceedings before the authorities. The concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities were upheld as the assessee did not contest the addition or provide any supporting material. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the assessee's lack of participation and evidence led to the rejection of both issues raised in the grounds of appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment under section 147 and the addition of Rs.58,58,913/- as unexplained investment. The appeal was dismissed as the assessee did not actively participate in the proceedings or provide substantial evidence to support their case.