IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1981/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S. RAM SAWROOP CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD., 2/79, SHIVAJI NAGAR, GURGAON. HARYANA 122 001. PAN: AACCR 4714M VS. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE II, GURGAON. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI F.R. MEENA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.01.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.01.2017 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND AS PER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES I.E. AO & CIT(A), HAVE E RRED IN ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS. 30,78, 110/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 5,05,920/-. AS SUCH THE ADDITIONS MADE THEREON MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE & IN LAW, THE LD CIT (A) & AO HAVE ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION ITA NO.1981/DEL/2014 PAGE 2 OF 3 AGGREGATING TO RS 7,98,832/- MADE BY THE AO TO THE RETURNED LOSS OF RS. 29,961/- OF THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TOTAL COMMISSION INCOME BEING UNDER DECL ARED. THE AO FAILED TO CONSIDER THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME IN WHICH ACTUAL RECEIPTS WERE SHOWN. AS SUCH, THE ADDITION O F RS 7,98,832/- MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME MAY PLEASE B E DELETED. 3. THAT ADDITION OF RS. 12,82,885/- WAS MADE ON TH E ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN REMAINING UNEXPLAINED AS CASH CRE DIT. THE ACTION OF THE LD CIT (A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION S MADE BY THE AO IS INCORRECT AND THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 12,82,885/ - MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 4. THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD CIT (A) DURING TH E APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND DISPOSING THE FIRST APPEA L WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, IS AGAINST THE LAW, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE NON-COMPLIANCE O F DETAILS SOUGHT DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS, IF ANY, WAS FOR T HE REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME MA Y BE GIVEN A LENIENT VIEW. AS SUCH, THE CONTRARY OBSERVATION DRA WN IN THIS REGARD BY CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 5. WE CRAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELETE OR MODIFY OR WIT HDRAW ANY OF ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 11.01.2017 , BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT NOTICE OF HEARING WAS REPEATEDLY SENT TO THE A SSESSEE BY REGISTERED A.D. SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING, THERE IS OPTION BUT TO HEAR T HE APPEAL EX PARTE . ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUE WAS HEARD. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CIT(AP PEALS) HAS EXAMINED ALL THE ISSUES IN DETAIL IN HIS ORDER AND THE LD. D R PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). ITA NO.1981/DEL/2014 PAGE 3 OF 3 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEA LS), WE FIND THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES IN DISP UTE RAISED BEFORE US IN DETAIL BY PASSING A REASONED ORDER. SINCE NO INFIR MITY IS POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017. SD/- SD/- (O.P. KANT ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER NEW DELHI, DATED, THE 12 TH JANUARY, 2017. /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.