9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T:- On mere perusal of the assessment order, it would reveal that the appellant had neither complied with the notice issued u/s 148 nor responded to the notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. In these circumstances, based on the information/evidence furnished by the Investigation Wing of the Department, Mumbai found as result of search and seizure operations in the hands of Shri Madhukar Narayan Patil who is land aggregator for Jai Corp Group, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment. No pleadings were made either before the ld. CIT(A) or during the course of hearing before the Tribunal, as to how the appellant was prevented from causing appearance before the Assessing Officer or complying with the statutory notices u/s 148/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Subsequently, based on the information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department, Mumbai that the appellant had received on-money payment on sale of plots situated at CIDCO Plots bearing Plot No.08, Sector- 56, admeasuring 450 sqm by Jai Corp Group, the Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3, Panvel, Dist.- Raigad ( Assessing Officer ) issued a notice u/s 148 calling upon the appellant to file the return of income. However, no return of income was filed by the appellant in response to said notice u/s 148 of the Act. The appellant also not complied with the other notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, in these circumstances, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment to best judgement by making addition of Rs.42,73 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition was made by the Assessing Officer solely on the basis of surmises, conjectures and third party s statement without offering any cross-examination to the appellant. Without prejudice to this argument, it was further contended that the property sold was jointly held by 5 persons and the entire on-money consideration cannot be taxed in the hands of appellant alone. 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR placing reliance on the orders of the lower authorities submitted that the assessee had not availed opportunities given by the Assessing Officer nor filed the return of income in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. He also submitted that the evidence relied upon by the Assessing Officer for the purpose of making addition was fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. During the course of hearing before us, the appellant had not rebutted the findings of the ld. CIT(A) given in para 15 of his order. Similarly, the evidence and statement given by Shri Madhukar Narayan Patil were supplied to the appellant during the course of proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). The only course of action open to the appellant is to rebut the assessment by cogent reliable evidence, which the appellant failed to do so. In these circumstances, the contentions raised by the appellant before us cannot be accepted. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 11th day of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
