9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Years (A.Ys) 2011-12 & 2013-14. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Company engaged in the business of trading of agricultural inputs, agro commodity, agricultural farming & manufacture of pumps, etc. For the Assessment Year 2011-12, the assessee filed its Return of Income declaring total income of Rs. 29,04,30,420/-. There was a survey action u/s. 133A in the business premises of the assessee and the assessee disclosed an additional income of Rs. 12,50,00,000/- on account of unsubstantiated purchase bills and unaccounted debtors. 2.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was issued with the questionnaire dated 16.09.2013 seeking various details. The assessee filed a reply on 17-12-2013, in or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notices of hearing of appeal. The only inference that can be drawn is that the assessee does not wish to pursue the appeal. In the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461 (relevant pages 477 &. 478) wherein their Lordships have held that "the appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it." In the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker Vs. CWT 223 IR 480 (MP) while, dismissing the reference made at the instance of assessee in default made following observations in their order. "if the partly at whose instance the reference is made falls to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, this court is not bound ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce to ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding that the agricultural income was to be taxed as income from other sources. 3. Without prejudice to ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding an addition of Rs. 21,32,85,956/- as income from other sources. 4. Without prejudice to ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding an addition of Rs 4,87,138/- under the provisions of section 36(1)(va). 5. Without prejudice to ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding the rejection of the book result. The rejection of the book result is not justified. 6. Without prejudice to ground no 1 and 5, The Commissioner of Income Tax [A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present appeals filed by the assessee are liable to be dismissed. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. It is seen from the assessment records, the assessee has not responded to the various notices and not filed relevant documents or materials before the Assessing officer. Therefore the Assessing officer passed an ex-parte order u/s. 144 of the Act. Even before the Ld. CIT(A), seven opportunities of hearing were given to the assessee from 22-01-2021 till 18-082022, the assessee neither filed written submissions nor requested for any adjournment of the hearings. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte appellate order, confirming the disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act and es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operative. Number of opportunities were given by the AO, however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities were given to the assessee to represent his case, however none remained present on behalf of assessee. Thereafter, the learned CIT(A) proceeded further with the appeal ex-parte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned CIT(A), we a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upholding the order under section 144 of the Act. The upholding of the ex parte order is not justified. 2. Without prejudice to ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding that the agricultural income was to be taxed as income from other sources. 3. Without prejudice to ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding an addition of Rs 1,50,01,38,918/- as income from other sources. 4. Without prejudice to ground no 1, The Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] erred in upholding an addition of Rs 6,36,31,076/- under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 9. Here the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on two counts namely exempt Agricultural income treated as income from ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
