KETAN V SHAH, JALNA V. DCIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

ITA 2367/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7863 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Condonation of delay; Documents seized
• Section: 142(1); 69; 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2367/MUM/2012 - A.Y. 2008 - 09 KETAN V. SHAH VS. DCIT 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, M UMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C SHARMA , AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM ITA NO. 2367 /MUM/201 2 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 08 - 09 ) KETAN V SHAH PLOT NO. 1 - 28/4088/6, NATHNAGAR, MANTHA ROAD, JALNA - 431 203. / VS. D Y.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 11, MUMBAI. .K ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI - 400 020. ./ ./ PAN NO. ACYPS9942F ( / APPELLANT) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH KUMAR YADAV, D.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 0 5 .12.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 .12.2017 / O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 37 , MUMBAI, DATED 21.07.2011 , WHICH IN ITSELF ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 14 4 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT ACT), DATED 31.12.2010 . THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAD RAISED BEFORE US THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - ITA NO. 2367/MUM/2012 - A.Y. 2008 - 09 KETAN V. SHAH VS. DCIT 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. DCIT U/S 144 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO FILE ANY RETURN. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,01,058/ - AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS. 1,00,000/ - 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY HAS IGNORED THE VITAL EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS NO SUCH INCOME AS ALLEGED BY THE A.O AND RELIED ON IRRELEVANT FACTS MENTIONED IN THE REMAND REPORT FURNISHED BY A.O. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH & SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SHAH GROUP, JALNA ON 21.02.2007 THE PREMISES OF M/S SANJAY AGENCIES WERE ALSO COVERED. T HAT AS THE ASSESSES HUF WAS A PARTNER IN M/S SANJAY AGENCIES, THEREFORE, THE ENQUIRIES IN THE BACKDROP OF THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH & SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS REVEALED CERTAIN PROPERTIES OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS GATHERED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD OFF THE PROPERTY BELONGING TO HIM AT SOLITAIRE PARK, ANDHERI, IN MAY, 2006, WHILE FOR CERTAIN OTHER PROPERTIES WERE DISPOSED OFF EVEN PRIOR TO THAT. THAT IT WAS GATHERED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LEFT WITH ONE LEASEH OLD PROPERTY AND BANK ACCOUNTS. 3. THE A.O OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE, A NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME WAS ISSUED AT HIS LAST KNOWN ITA NO. 2367/MUM/2012 - A.Y. 2008 - 09 KETAN V. SHAH VS. DCIT 3 ADDRESS, VIZ. E - 401, G REENWOOD APARTMENTS, ANDHERI - KURLA ROAD, CHAKALA, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI - 72. THAT AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EFFECT COMPLIANCE, THEREFORE, ANOTHER NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED ALONGWITH A Q U ERY LETTER, WHICH THIS TIME WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSES RE PRESENTATI VE M/S M.A SHAH & CO. O N 04.02.2010 , HOWEVER, THIS TIME TOO NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O IN ALL FAIRNESS ISSUED ANOTHER NOTICE FIXING THE HEARING ON 11.11.2010, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE A LETTER DATED 10.11.2 010 SOUGHT AN ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE AUTHORISED PERSON OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ADJOURNED AND FIXED FOR HEARING ON 16.11.2010. THAT ON THE STIPULATED DATE A LETTER WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN TA PAL, WHEREIN IT WAS INFORMED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD DURING THE YEAR FOR WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME HAD REMAINED ABROAD A ND THUS A NON - RESIDENT , THEREFORE, HE HAD NO TAXABLE INCOME. IT WAS HOWEVER FURTHER STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR WAS BEING OBTAINED AND WOULD BE PLACED ON RECORD. THAT AS NO RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FORTHCOMING, THEREFORE, THE A.O ISSUED ANOTHER LETTER DATED 13.12.2010 GIVING ANOTHER OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND ATTEND THE HEARING OF THE CASE ON 20.12.2010 . THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.11.2010. 3. THE A.O OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.11.2010, DECLARING NIL INCOME. THAT A PERUSAL OF THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME REVEALED BANK INTEREST OF RS. 1,242/ - , HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE BANK ACCOUNT S ON WHICH SUCH INTERES T WAS RECEIVED. THE A.O OBSERVED THAT AS THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29.11.2010 WAS NEITHER A BELATED RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(4), NOR WITHIN THE TIME ITA NO. 2367/MUM/2012 - A.Y. 2008 - 09 KETAN V. SHAH VS. DCIT 4 ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE NOTICE U/S 142(1), DATED. 23.09.2008, THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS AN INVALID RETURN OF INCOME. THE A.O IN THE BACKDROP OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS PROCEEDED WITH AND FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT UNDER SEC. 144 OF THE ACT. 4. THE A.O DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBTAINED A COPY OF THE SB A/C NO. 00861000057584 OF THE ASSESSEE WITH HDFC BANK LTD., WHICH REVEALED CREDITS/ DEPOSITS OF RS. 2,92,597/ - ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPTS AND INTEREST. THE A.O OBSERVED THAT AS THE STATEMENT OF THE AFORESAID BANK ACCOUNT W AS FOR THE PERIOD 26.07. 2007, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTIONS FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2007 TO 25.07.2007 WORKED OUT THE CREDITS ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPTS AND INTEREST FOR THE SAID PERIOD ON A PRO RATA BASIS, AND ON THE BASIS OF HIS WORKING TOOK THE CREDITS FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR AT R S . 5,85,194/ - . THE A.O FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS AN INTEREST OF R S . 134/ - IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH PEOPLES COOPERATIVE BANK, JALNA. THE A.O ON THE BASIS OF HIS AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS MADE AN ADDITION OF R S . 5,8 5,328/ - (I.E RS. 5,85,194/ - + RS. 134/ - ] UNDER SEC. 69 IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. STILL FURTHER THE A.O OBSERVED THAT THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH & SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SHAH GROUP, JALNA AND M/S SANJAY AG ENCIES REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD LEASED OUT HIS PROPERTY OF THE VALUE OF RS. 4,8 0 ,000/ - AT NOIDA, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS HAVING BEEN DIVULGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN O F INCOME AS REGARDS THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE SAID PROPER TY , THERE FORE, ESTIMATED THE NET INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY AT RS. 1,00,000/ - . 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER I N APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE CIT( A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. THE A.O IN HIS REMAND REPORT ITA NO. 2367/MUM/2012 - A.Y. 2008 - 09 KETAN V. SHAH VS. DCIT 5 REGRETTED HIS MISTAKE OF ADOPTING THE BANK INTEREST INCOME AT RS. 5,85,328/ - , AND THUS RESTRICTED THE SAME TO AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,79,770 - 72 (I.E HDFC BANK INTEREST : RS. 2,79,770 - 72 + JAINA CO - OPERATIVE BANK INTEREST : RS. 134 ). THE A.O FURTHER OBSERVED THAT INTEREST OF RS. 21,153/ - ON SB ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH BANK OF BARODA HAD REMAINED OMITTED TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX, THEREFORE, REQUESTED THE CIT(A) TO ENHA NCE THE INCOME TO THE SAID EXTENT. 6. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE EITHER THE MATURITY PROCEEDS OF RELIEF BONDS OR INTEREST FROM RELIEF BONDS , BOTH OF WHICH WERE EXEMPT FROM TAX. THAT AS REGARDS THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ASSESSED BY TH E A.O AT RS. 1 LAC, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS THE SAME WAS ONLY A PLOT OF LAND AND NOT A BUILDING, THEREFORE, NO INCOME WAS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD HOUSE PROPERTY. THE CIT(A) AFTER DELIBERATING ON THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BA CKDROP OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE REMAND REPORT OBTAINED FROM THE A.O, WAS HOWEVER NOT PERSUADED TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CLAIM RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AS REGARDS BOTH OF THE ISSUES . THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THA T THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE EITHER THE MATURITY PROCEEDS OF THE RELIEF BONDS OR THE INTEREST ON SUCH RELIEF BONDS, BOTH OF WHICH WERE EXEMPT FROM TAX, COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE . THE CIT(A) THEREAFTER PROC EEDED WITH AND AFTER TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE PROPOSAL OF THE A.O TO ENHANCE THE INTEREST INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY A FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS. 21,153/ - (SUPRA) , SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS, 3,01,058/ - TOWARDS THE BANK CREDITS AND INTEREST INCOME. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE PROPERTY AT NOIDA WAS NOT A BUILDING BUT A PLOT, THUS CONCLUDED T H AT THE A.O HAD FAIRLY ASSESSED THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1 LAC. ITA NO. 2367/MUM/2012 - A.Y. 2008 - 09 KETAN V. SHAH VS. DCIT 6 7. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAD CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DESPITE BEING INFORMED ABOUT THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, NEITHER ANYBODY HAD PUT IN AN APPEARANCE ON HIS BEHALF, NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING AN ADJOU RNMENT OF THE CASE HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE US. WE THUS BEING LEFT WITH NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE, THEREFORE, PROCEED WITH THE MATTER AS PER RULE 24 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 AND DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE RESPONDENT REVENUE AND PERUSING T HE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL FILED IN THIS CASE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 196 DAYS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONGWITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF MR. MADHUKAR JUMBAD S/O. SH. RAMCHANDRA JUMBAD, WHO WAS HANDLING THE ACCOUNTS AND TAXATION MATTERS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AVERRED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL HAD OCCASIONED ON ACCOUNT OF SH. MADHUKAR JUMBAD (SUPRA), WHO AFTER HAVING RECEIVED THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) HAD KEPT THE SAME IN HIS DRAWER AND HAD PROCEEDED ON LEAVE FOR A PERIOD OF 1 MONTHS. IT IS CLAIMED THAT IT WAS ONLY WHEN MR. MADHUKAR KAMBAD IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2012 WAS UPDATING THE TAXATION MATTERS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE C H ARTERED A CCOUNTANT, VIZ. MR. R.C MAKADIA, PARTNER OF M/S M.A SHAH & CO., THAT ON A QUERY BY HIM AS TO WHETHER THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, VIZ. A.Y. 2008 - 09 WAS RECEIVED, THAT IT WAS ONLY THEN THAT THE ACCOUNTANT LOCATED THE ORDER AND IMMEDIATELY MADE THE SAME AVAILABLE TO THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT INVOLVING NO FURTHER LOSS OF TIME IMMEDIATELY PREPARED THE APPEAL AND FILED IT WITH THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, THE SAME BY TH AT TIME ALREADY INVOLVED A DELAY OF 196 DAYS. ITA NO. 2367/MUM/2012 - A.Y. 2008 - 09 KETAN V. SHAH VS. DCIT 7 9. WE FIND THAT IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DELAY IN FI L ING OF THE APPEAL HAD TAKEN PLACE BECAUSE OF AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE OF THE ACCOUN TANT, VIZ. MR. MADHUKAR KAMBAD. WE HAVE PERUSED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE SEEKING CONDONATION OF D ELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL , WHICH IS ACCOMPANIED BY AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE ACCOUNTANT, VIZ. MR. MADHUKAR KAMBAD. WE FIND THAT THE ACCOUNTANT SH. MADHUKAR KAMBAD HAD DULY DEPOSED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL HAD OCCASIONED DUE TO AN INADVERTENT M ISTAKE ON HIS PART. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE DELAY OF 196 DAYS INVOLVED IN FILING OF THE APPEAL, AND FIND THAT THE SAME HAD OCCURRED BECAUSE OF AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE ON THE PART OF HIS ACCO UNTANT WHO HAD DULY ADMITTED THE SAME . WE THUS IN ALL FAIRNESS BEING OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE DELAY INVOLVED IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN PLACE BECAUSE OF AN INADVERTENT DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ACCOUNTANT AND NOT FOR ANY LAPSES AND LACHES OF THE ASSESSEE , THEREFORE, IN ALL FAIRNESS CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL. 10. WE NOW ADVERT TO THE MERITS OF T HE CASE. WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD THROUGHOUT BEEN CLAIMING THAT THE CREDITS/DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE EITHER THE MATURITY PROCEEDS OF THE RELIEF BONDS OR INTEREST ON SUCH RELIEF BONDS, BOTH OF WHICH WERE EXEMPT FROM TAX , HOWEVER , WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT FOR RAISING SUCH A CLAIM, HAD NEITHER BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES NOR BEFORE US HAD PLACED ON RECORD ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD GO TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER E D VIEW THAT NOW WHEN THERE ARE CERTAIN CREDITS/DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE , THEN THE ONUS IS CAST UPON HIM TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE SAME. WE FIND THAT AS THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES HAD FAILED TO PLACE ON RECORD ANY SUCH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE ITA NO. 2367/MUM/2012 - A.Y. 2008 - 09 KETAN V. SHAH VS. DCIT 8 UNEXPLAINED CREDITS/INTEREST INCOME AGGREGATING TO RS. 3,01,058/ - APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS UNDER SEC. 69 OF THE ACT. WE HAVE DELIBERATED AT LENGTH ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND FINDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAME, THEREFORE UPHOLD THE SAME TO THE SAID EXTENT. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 AND GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 (TO THE EXTENT RELATING TO GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 ) ARE DISMISSED . 11. WE FURTHE R FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ASSAILED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAC MADE BY THE A.O IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE A SSESSEE AT NOIDA. WE FIND THAT AS STANDS GATHERED FROM THE CIT(A) ORDER, PURSUANT TO SEARCH & SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED ON M/S SANJAY ENTERPRISES (IN WHICH THE ASSESSES HUF WAS A PARTNER), THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED A PROPERTY ON LEASE ON 26.02.2004 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 4,89,000/ - . WE FIND THAT THE A.O IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS FORTHCOMING FROM THE ASSESSEE, THEREIN ASSESSED THE INCOME FROM THE PROPERTY AT RS. 1 LAC. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE THROUGHOUT HAD BEEN CLAIMING THAT AS THE PROPERTY WAS A PLOT AND NOT A BUILDING, THEREFORE, NO INCOME AS REGARDS THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT FOR RAISING THE AFORESAID UNSUBSTANTIATE D CLAI M, HOWEVER, HAD FAILED TO PLACE ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL WHICH C OULD FORTIFY HIS SAID CLAIM. WE FIND THAT AS DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DRIVE HOME HIS CONTENTION ON THE BASIS OF ANY EVIDENCE, THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES CANNOT BE FAULTED WITH. WE THUS NOT FINDING ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THUS, UPHOLD HIS ORDER AS REGARDS THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION . THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 AND GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 (TO THE EXTENT RELATING TO GR OUND OF APPEAL NO. 3) ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 2367/MUM/2012 - A.Y. 2008 - 09 KETAN V. SHAH VS. DCIT 9 12. WE MAY HEREIN OBSERVE THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO COMP L Y WITH THE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 142(1), THEREFORE, THE A. O EXERCISING THE POWERS AS STOOD VESTED HIM UNDER SEC. 144(1)(B) HAD RIGHTLY ASSESSED THE INCOME UNDER SEC. 144. THUS , THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 ASSAILING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O UNDER SEC. 144 OF THE ACT IS DISMISSED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 5 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE IS DISMISSED. 7 . THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 /12/2017 SD/ - SD/ - (R.C SHARMA ) ( RAVISH SOOD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; 27 .12 .2017 * PS. ROHIT KUMAR / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI ITA NO. 2367/MUM/2012 - A.Y. 2008 - 09 KETAN V. SHAH VS. DCIT 10