9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effective written submission for persuing appeal after requesting for 3 month time due to bulk nature of supporting evidences. however only 5 days given instead of 3 month. 3. For the reason that learned commissioner has already made to decide to dismiss the appeal hastily, without necessary care and application of mind. 4. For the reason that by observing the fact of the case the order passed by learned commissioner is bad in law as well as on the fact and circumstances of the case. 5. For the reason that the lumpsum adhock addition of Rs. 96,99,743/- on account of Capital Investment made by assessee and treating the same as undisclosed purchase by Hon Assessing officer is bad in law and justified the order of Id AO by learned commissioner without application of mind is not proper and justified. 6. For the reason that the lumpsum adhock addition of Rs. 5,98,030/-on account of clerical error made by assessee and treating the same as short term capital gain by the Hon Assessing officer is bad in law and justified the order of Id AO by learned commissioner without application of mind is not proper and justified. 7. For the reason that the lumpsum adhock addition of Rs. 1,45 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Learned Assessing Officer is bad in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case". The Id. AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) for the year under consideration according to procedures provided in the Act and all the additions were made as per following procedure provided in the I. T. Act, 1961. The appellant was not filing any written submission, the appellant has shown that he is not interested in pursuing the appeal. The laws aid those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. Under these circumstances, in my opinion the appellant is not interest in the appeal. In view of these facts, the appeal of the appellant deserves to be dismissed as it cannot be kept pending adjudication for indefinite period. It is the duty of the appellant to make necessary arrangements for effective representation on the appointed date. Mere filing of an appeal is not enough, rather it requires effective hearing also. Therefore, the appeal is found liable for dismissal. This view is supported by the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) In the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) Hon'ble MP High Court has held as u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove. when repeated opportunity in this regard was provided clearly shows that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. I have considered the facts of the assessment order and found that "The appellant has never objected the procedures followed for assessment order and validity of statutory notices issued and served to its. Therefore, procedure followed for assessment order and issuance and services of notices are valid and lawful. The issuance and service of the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is valid and lawful. The Id. AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) for the year under consideration according to procedures provided in the Act and made additions of Rs. 96,99,743/- Rs. 5,98,030/- & Rs. 1,45,472/- as per following procedure provided in the I.T. Act, 1961 and principals of natural justice. Therefore, the claim of the assessee is remains unstainable for assessment order passed by the Id. AO is bad in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case." Therefore, following the view taken in the case cited above, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed accordingly, Therefore, appeal on these grounds are dismissed. 3.2 Ground No. 2: - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urniture and fitting as on 31.03.2015 is Rs. 15,80,128/- whereas as per ITR 2016-17 the w.d.v. of furniture and fitting as on 01.04.2015 is 17,25,600/-. Thus, there are increase in opening balance and closing balance is Rs. 1,45,472/-. The assessee was asked to explain why the increase amount should not be considered as unexplained investment and depreciation claimed i.e. Rs. 14,550/- on the increased amount should be disallowed and added back to the total income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has furnished his reply through email on 25.12.2018 Id. AO. After considering the assessee's reply, the Id. AO added Rs. 1,45,472/- to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration, as the assessee failed to furnished any supporting for its contention, hence amount of Rs. 1,45,472/- is considered as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act as the assessee has no valid explanations/ no evidence. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 1,45,472/- and depreciation claimed at Rs. 14,550/- is disallowed are added back to the total income." Despite the repeated opportunity of hearing to appellant, no explanation has been furnished by the appellant durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. AO, therefore, the addition made by the Ld. AO u/s 69 for the want of source of investment was without any basis and uncalled for. It is the submission that sufficient evidence are available to explain the source of investment made. To substantiate the aforesaid fact, Ld. AR submitted before us details of investment, copies of ledger account, bank statement, invoice for purchase of respective asset etc. 7.3 Ld. Sr. DR representing the revenue on the other hand, vehemently supported the order of revenue authorities. 7.4 We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record including the evidence placed by the assessee and the orders of revenue authorities. On a thoughtful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that necessary supporting documents to substantiate the addition in assets by way of fresh investment are furnished before the Ld. AO, however, the addition was made on account of unexplained investment, whereas referring to the bank statement of the assessee, the source of investment cannot be construed as unexplained at threshold, without considering the entries through banking channel which are claime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the change in amount of closing stock of plant and machinery in the previous year which was carried forward as the opening stock in the current year was on account of change of method of depreciation, therefore, the same shall not be treated as short-term capital gain of the assessee. 8.2 Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR representing the revenue vehemently supported the order of revenue authorities. 8.3 We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and the orders of revenue authorities. On perusal of the depreciation chart of the assessee, it is evident that there was no entry in the column "SOLD", therefore, the inference that there was a sale of asset during the year under consideration by the Ld. AO cannot be subscribed to, in absence of any evidence to prove so, only on the basis of presumption or failure of assessee to furnish the supporting evidence regarding the method of depreciation due to which such change in closing stock viz-a-viz opening stock was occurred. This issue needs further examination / investigation, therefore, in the interest of justice it would be appropriate to set aside the same to the file of Ld. AO for verification and f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
