9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come of Rs. 4,83,920/-. The return of income was initially processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. AO has noted that information was received from DDIT (Inv.), Unit-II(2), New Delhi whereas it was conveyed that the assessee who was the proprietor of Kalka Udyog had made cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 42,67,78,338/- in the four bank accounts. AO, thereafter, for the reasons recorded u/s. 148 reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Thereafter, AO has noted that in the statement of the assessee which was recorded on 28.12.2016, assessee had admitted that he was in the business of providing accommodation entries to various persons and was charging commission for doing the same. AO has noted that assessee has shown commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which related to the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the appellant for providing accommodation entries. The AO had repeatedly asked the appellant to provide supporting documents in order to justify his claim of commission income earned @ 0.40% to 0.45%. However, the appellant failed to provide any details. The AO therefore, rightly rejected the books of account of the appellant as the same did not reflect the true state of affairs of the business activities of the appellant. It is further observed that the case relied upon by the AR of Delhi High Court in the case of JRD Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, has been perused and it is noted that the same has different facts from the present case. In that case, a search u/s. 132 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd No. 2 of the appeal is related to the re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR has not filed any submission on this ground. Moreover, as per the facts of the case discussed in Para 4.1 above, it is observed that the AO had sufficient material to formulate reasons to believe that some income had escaped assessment, which were sufficient for re-opening the case u/s. 147 of the Act. In view of this, the ground of appeal related to the re-opening of the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act is dismissed. 6. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 of the appeal are general in nature and do not require any separate comments. 7. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Year 2018 and there was no appearance. Thereafter, appeal was listed for hearing on 27.04.2021, 28.06.2021, 06.09.2021, 16.11.2021, 19.01.2022, 19.04.2022, 01.08.2022, 14.11.2022 & 16.02.2023. On all the occasions, the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal despite notices issued through RPAD nor any application was filed seeking for adjournment. Further, the notice issued by the Registry through RPAD was returned unserved by the postal authorities. Considering the aforesaid facts, we have no option except to dispose of the appeal on merits, after hearing the Ld. D.R. 7. Before us, Learned DR took us through the findings of lower authorities and submitted that no interference to the order of CIT(A) is called for. 8. We have heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
