TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Assessee. - I.T.A. No.1341/Ahd/2018 - - - Dated:- 5-3-2020 - Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri R.A. Dyani, Addl.CIT ORDER PER SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Ahmedabad [CIT(A) in short] vide appeal no.CIT(A)-3/264/Wd.3(3)(1)/16-17 dated 22/03/2018 arising in the assessment order passed under s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act ) dated 01/12/2011 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .e. either unsecured loans or loans and advances having been routed through banking channels and keeping in view the fact that the source of the same being the transactions with the stock exchange, the impugned addition was even otherwise not justified in absence of any adverse material on record and hence the impugned addition of ₹ 21,14,476/- requires to be deleted. 3. Today, the case was fixed for hearing but none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any adjournment application has been filed on record. 4. From the records, we observe that required notice was sent to the assessee by Registered Post which was duly served upon the assessee and in this respect acknowledgment from the Department of Posts has already been placed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is reproduced hereunder: 5.1. Decision: I have persued the assessment order of the AO and the statement of facts filed by the appellant carefully. The AO has given substantial oppoertunities of being heard as per ratio laid down in the case of Rakesh C. Rastogi Ans Vs. AA-253 ITR 94 (SC). However, the appellant could not or was not in a position to avail such opportunity to explain the investments in question. In fact the AO has noted that the appellant has expressed his inability to explain the impugned investment of ₹ 21,14,476/-. Notwithstanding the recording by the A.O., number of opportunities were given by this office from 02.02.2015 onwards but to no avail. No new evidence were filed under Rule 46A, therefore, no r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I decide to not confirm the amount of ₹ 26,800/- so as to defray natural justice. However, I confirm the addition u/s.69B of ₹ 21,17,676/-. The ground of appeal is party allowed. 8. Although in the present appeal, assessee has raised four grounds but all the four grounds raised by the assessee are inter-connected, inter-related and relates to challenging the order of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investments u/s.69B of the Act. 9. After having gone through the facts of the present case, we find that the assessee miserably failed to explain the impugned assessment before Assessing Officer as well CIT(A). Therefore, the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
