IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES A: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.1461/DEL./2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 SHRI ANISH, 210, VPO RISALU, PANIPAT, HARYANA 132 103. PAN AMQPM2167C VS., THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PANIPAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : - NONE - FOR REVENUE : SHRI ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 03 .0 7 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 .0 7 .2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), KARNAL, DATED 09.01.2017, FOR THE A.Y. 2012-2013. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN NOTIFIED THE DATE OF HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POST, HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 2 ITA.NO.1461/DEL./2017 SHRI ANISH, PANIPAT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A.O. ISSUED STATUTORY NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TIME TO TIME. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE A.O. AND FILED INFORMATION/EVIDENCE. THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH HIM. THE A.O. NOTED THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN FIGURE OF OPENING STOCK VIS--VIS CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCY ALONG WITH SOURCE OF FRESH CAPITAL ADDITION INTO HIS PROPRIETOR CAPITAL ACCOUNT, BUT, NO EXPLANATION WAS SUBMITTED. THE A.O. HAS GIVEN NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT, THE DISCREPANCIES HAVE NOT BEEN CLARIFIED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ATTENDING THE PROCEEDINGS, BUT, DID NOT RECONCILE THE DISCREPANCIES AND EVEN DID NOT CLARIFY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES. THE A.O. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.64,71,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.40,64,600/- MADE FOR INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF COWS AND FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.8,50,000/- WAS MADE FOR 3 ITA.NO.1461/DEL./2017 SHRI ANISH, PANIPAT. INTRODUCTION OF FRESH CAPITAL IN PROPRIETORS ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF SOME VOUCHERS AND LEDGER ACCOUNT WHICH WERE SOUGHT TO BE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND EVEN NO FORMAL APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A HAVE BEEN FILED FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. D.R. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE A.O. DESPITE GIVING NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES TO VERIFY ON THE ABOVE THREE ADDITIONS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY APPLICATION BEFORE LD. CIT(A) UNDER RULE 46A FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, RIGHTLY NOTED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN ANY REASONABLE CAUSE AS TO WHY THE SAME EVIDENCES WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE A.O. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD, NO 4 ITA.NO.1461/DEL./2017 SHRI ANISH, PANIPAT. INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATTER. WE CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DELHI, DATED 04 TH JULY, 2019 VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT A BENCH 6. GUARD FILE //BY ORDER// ASST. REGISTRAR : ITAT : DELHI BENCHES : DELHI.