Rajendra Jaysingh Londhe, Kolhapur V. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Kolhapur

ITA 411/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2298 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2020
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 40A(3); 142(1); 68; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, J UDICIAL M EMBER . / I TA NO. 411 /PUN/20 17 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 SHRI RAJENDRA JAYSINGH LONDHE, 814, B WARD, RAVIWAR PETH, SUBHASH ROAD, KOLHAPUR. PAN : AALPL0819P ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, KOLHAPUR. / RESPONDENT A SSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI SUDHENDU DAS / DATE OF HEARING : 0 2 . 12 .2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02 . 12 .2020 / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHU RY, JM : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) - 1, KOLHAPUR DATED 05.10.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 AS PER FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD: 2 ITA NO. 411 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2011 - 12 1. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS VOID AB - INITIO. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN TO CONSIDER OUR GROUND. 2. LACK OF OPPORTUNITY IN FINAL NOTICE SERVED ON MY WIFE. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN TO CONSIDER OUR GROUND. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN IDBI BANK RS.2,00,000/ - U/S.68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF U/S.69C OF EXPENDI TURE CLAIMED BY US 10% OF RS.1,95,12,706/ - I.E. 19,52,270/ - . THE APPELLANT PRAYS YOUR HONOUR TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE BY HIM. THE APPELLANT REQUEST YOUR HONOUR TO KINDLY ADD/ALTER/MODIFY ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEF ORE THE HEARING. 2. IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS NO APPEARANCE FROM ASSESSEE EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. THE CASE WAS HEARD AFTER RECORDING SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR. THERE WAS NO ADJOURNMENT PETITION ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESS EE. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 60 DAYS . HOWEVER, THIS DELAY HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF FILING OF APPEAL THROUGH CONDONATION PETITION AND DOCTORS CERTIFICATE WHICH ARE ON RECORD . THE LD. DR SU BMITTED THAT GOING THROUGH THESE DOCUMENTS, HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND THE CASE IS HEARD ON MERITS. TH AT ON PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE DELAY CANNOT BE ATTRIBU TED TO THE DELIBERATE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE OR ANY MALA - FIDE INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ENTIRE DELAY IS EXPLAINED THROUGH DOCTORS CERTIFICATE WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN SUCH SCENARIO, WE CONDONE THIS DELAY OF 60 DAYS A FTER RECORDING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND THE CASE IS HEARD ON MERITS. 3 ITA NO. 411 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2011 - 12 4. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DULY AUDITED. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICES U/S.143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE CALLING FOR CERTAIN INFORMATION AND DETAILS WERE SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE. MANY OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AS PER THE QUESTIONNAIRE GIVEN. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICES NOR AVAILED THE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN IN EXPLAINING THE CASE. T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT CO - OPERATE IN EXPEDITING THE MATTER AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED ASSESSMENT U/S.144 OF THE ACT. 4.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER PERUSED THE MATERIAL S ON RECORD AND NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2,00,000/ - ON 14.03.2011 IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH IDBI BANK, SHIVAJI CHOWK BRANCH, KOLHAPUR. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CLARIFICATION EITHER FROM THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO HOLD THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT BY INVOK ING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED TO HIS P & L ACCOUNT OF RS.1,95,12,707/ - AS DIRECT EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXERCISING HIS BES T JUDGMENT HELD THAT 20% OF SUCH EXPENDITURE REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THESE EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.39,02,541/ - BEING UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S.69C OF THE ACT AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME RETURNED. 4 ITA NO. 411 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2011 - 12 5. REFERRING TO THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE PERTAINS TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN IDBI BANK RS.2,00,000/ - U/S.68 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) VIDE PARA 5.3 ON THIS ISSUE HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS : 5.3 REGARDING THE THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL CONTESTING THE ADDITIONS RS.2,00,000/ - U/S.68 OF THE ACT. THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED HAS NOT COMMENTED UPON THE DEPOSIT OF CASH INTO BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE ON 14.03.2011. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED ON RECORD CASH BOOK EXTRACT FOR THE DAY I.E.14.03.2011. THE AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT CASH DEPOSIT IS OUT OF EARLIER WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK ON 01.03.2011 OF RS.5,30,000/ - . ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE CASH EXTRACT PLACED ON RECORD BY THE AR AND HIGHLIGHTED BY YELLOW MARK, IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAD ENOUGH CASH BALANCE OF RS.7,59,971/ - ON THE DATE OF WITHDRAWAL OF RS.5,30,000/ - I.E. ON 01.03.2011. THERE WAS NO NEED TO WITHDRAW RS.5,30,000/ - AND KEEP IT WITH HIM TILL 14.03.2011 AND REDEPOSIT RS.2,00,000/ - OUT OF ALLEGED CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS.5,30,000/ - MADE ON 01.03.2011. IT IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT ASSESSEE REALLY HAS CASH BALANCE AND CARRIED IT TILL 14.03.2011. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT IS THE REFORE NOT TENABLE AND HENCE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. I THEREFORE UPHOLD THE ADDITION RS.2,00,000/ - . 6. THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL), WE FIND THAT REVENUE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE EARLIER WITHDRAWALS BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BANK. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENOUGH CASH BALANCE AS EVIDENT AT PARA 5.3 OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL)S ORDER. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT FROM THE CASH WITHDRAWALS, THE DEPOSIT OF RS.2,00,000/ - HAVE BEEN MADE. TH E REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY DEFINITE CASE IN THIS REGARD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE NOR HAS BROUGHT OUT ANY EVIDENCE THAT SUCH DEPOSIT S W ERE FROM SOME OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME, NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE REVENUE IS ADMITTING THE EARLIER WITHDRAWALS OF CASH BY THE ASSESSEE , WHEN THE REVENU E IS ALSO ADMITTING THE ASSESSEE HAVING ENOUGH CASH BALANCE, IN SUCH SCENARIO, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION ON THIS GROUND. IT IS WELL EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,000/ - WAS DEPOSITED FROM EARLIER 5 ITA NO. 411 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2011 - 12 WITHDRAWALS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET A SIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, GROUND NO.3 RAISED IN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. GROUND NO.4 PERTAINS TO THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.69C OF THE ACT OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED 10% OF RS.1,95,12,7 06/ - I.E. RS.19,52,270/ - . 8. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) ON THIS ISSUE VIDE PARA 5.4 OF HIS ORDER HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 5.4 REGARDING THE GROUND OF APPEAL CONTESTING THE ADDITION RS.39,02,541/ - AS PER THE APPELLANT, AFTER THE ADDITION @20% OF THE DIRECT EXPENSES THE GROSS PROFIT RATE WOULD SHOOT UP TO 40% WHICH ACCORDING TO THE AR IS IMPOSSIBLE. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AUDITED. THOUGH BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE AUDITED ONE, THE ASSESSEE & AR HAVE NOT SUBMITTED THE SAME BEFORE AO DESPITE OF THE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES. EVEN BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THEY HAVE SOUGHT LARGE NUMBER OF ADJOURNMENTS. MORE SO EVEN THEY HAVE SOUGHT TIME F OR SUBMITTING THE DETAILS BEFORE AO FOR HIS REMAND REPORT. THE ADJOURNMENTS SOUGHT MANY TIMES ARE FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THEM ONLY. THE MOTIVE BEHIND ADJOURNMENTS BEFORE ALL AUTHORITIES IS NOT FREE FROM DOUBT. REMAND REPORT STATES THAT THERE IS ABOU T 70 % EXPENDITURE IN CASH AND THROUGH SELF MADE VOUCHERS. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS NOTEWORTHY TO MENTION THAT ASSESSEE HAS THE PRACTICE OF MAKING MINOR PAYMENTS BY CHEQUES AS SEEN FROM THE BANK STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2011. UNDER SUCH CI RCUMSTANCES, IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REALLY LAID OUT THE EXPENDITURE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES ONLY. WHILE CLAIMING SUCH A LARGE EXPENDITURE OF RS.2 CRORES, ONE OUGHT TO BE DILIGENT IN GETTING DETAILS OF WORK DON E, MEASUREMENT OF WORK ETC. AS IT IS A USUAL PRACTICE, A CIVIL CONTRACTOR MAKES PAYMENT AFTER GETTING THE MEASUREMENT DETAILS OF WORK DONE THROUGH RUNNING BILLS SUBMITTED BY SUB CONTRACTOR(S). HE MAINTAINS LABOUR RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THE LABOURERS EMPLOYED TO ENSURE ESCAPEMENT OF LIABILITY IN TIMES OF ACCIDENTS AND DEATHS. THE ARS STATEMENT THAT NATURE OF BUSINESS REQUIRES CASH PAYMENTS ONLY HAS NO WEIGHTAGE. LEGISLATURE HAS INTENTION OF MINIMIZING THE CASH TRANSACTIONS IN THE FORM OF ENACTMENT OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE AR HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANYTHING TO SUPPORT THAT THE PAYMENTS CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED HAVE REALLY REACHED TO THE RECIPIENTS. NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE OR CONFIRMATIONS TO SHOW THAT EXPENDITURE THROUGH SELF MADE VOUCHERS IS WHOL LY AND EXCLUSIVELY LAID DOWN FOR APPELLANTS BUSINESS PURPOSE. CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AOS REMAND REPORT AND FINDINGS AND ALSO CONSIDERING NATURE OF EXPENDITURE BOOKED BY THE APPELLANT, I RESTRICT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY WAY OF E STIMATED DISALLOWANCE TO 50%. RESULTANTLY, THE ADDITION IS RESTRICTED TO 10% OF DIRECT EXPENSES. 6 ITA NO. 411 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2011 - 12 9. THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEAL), IT IS EVIDENT THAT ON THIS ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANYTHING TO SUPPORT THAT TH E PAYMENTS CLAIMED TO HAVE ACTUALLY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. THAT THERE WERE NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE OR CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THESE WERE IN RELATION TO ASSESSEES BUSINESS PURPOSE. THERE WAS ALSO REMAND REPORT CALLED FOR BY THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) FROM CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREIN, IT IS STATED THAT ABOUT 70% EXPENDITURES WERE MADE IN CASH AND THROUGH SELF MADE VOUCHERS. THESE WERE NOT REFUTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH PROP ER EVIDENCES AS EVIDENT FROM RECORD. IN SUCH SCENARIO, THE DISALLOWANCE BEING RESTRICTED TO 10% OF DIRECT EXPENSES AS HELD BY THE LD. LD. CIT(APPEAL) NEEDS NO FURTHER INTERFERENCE AND IS UPHELD. THUS, GROUND NO.4 RAISED IN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. 10. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS VOID - AB - INITIO. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) ON THIS ISSUE VIDE PARA 5.1 HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 5.1 REGARDING THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER VOID - AB - INITIO. AO HAS GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING THE RETURN AND SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WITH RESPECT TO THE EXPENDITURE. HE DID NOT ATTEND AND AVAIL OF THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR EXPLAINING THE RETURN. DESPITE OF MANY OPPORT UNITIES, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE AO. CONSIDERING MANY ASSESSMENTS TO BE COMPLETED BY AO WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT, AO MIGHT HAVE BECOME INTOLERANT AND FEELING NO ALTERNATE, RESTORED TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. SHE COM MUNICATED HER INTENTION OF FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S.144 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE EVEN DID NOT AVAIL THIS FINAL OPPORTUNITY ALSO. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE EXPECTED THAT AO HAS TO SIT QUIET TILL THE ASSESSEE ATTENDS AT HIS CONVENIENCE AND COM PLETE THE ASSESSMENT AS PER TIME CONVENIENCE OF ASSESSEE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, AO HAS RIGHTLY PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IT IS INCORRECT TO SAY THAT THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB INITIO FOR WANT OF NATURAL JUSTICE. I DO NOT HAVE ANY HESITATION IN HOLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY AO TO BE THE ORDER PASSED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF ACT. 7 ITA NO. 411 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2011 - 12 IN THE RESULT, THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENT S ON RECORDS AND FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) , IT IS ABSOLUTELY CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING THE RETURN AND SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WITH RESPECT TO EXPENDITURE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND AND AVAIL OPPORTUNITIES OF EXPLAINING THE RETURN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THAT DESPITE MANY OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THAT EVEN BEFORE MAKING BEST JUDGME NT ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO COMMUNICATED THE SAID INTENTION OF FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S.144 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THEN ALSO THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AVAIL THIS FINAL OPPORTUNITY. IN SUCH SCENARIO, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE RE VENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE ABSOLUTELY DONE CORRECT THING AS PER PROCESS OF LAW ENSHRINED IN THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) ON THIS ISSUE IS UPHELD AND GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 12. GROUND NO.2 RAISED IN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINS TO LACK OF OPPORTUNITIES IN FINAL HEARING. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) VIDE PARA 5.2 OF HIS ORDER HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 5.2 REGARDING SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL LACK OF OPPORTUNITY IN FINAL HEARING. AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 9 A BOVE, THE APPELLANT WAS GIVEN MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO SUPPORT HIS RETURN OF INCOME. HE IS SIMPLY RAISING HUE & CRY THAT HE WAS NOT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY AO GAVE HIM A LAST CALL CUM WARDING TO PRESENT HIS CASE. ASSESSEE AND AR BOTH KNEW ABOUT IT BUT DID NOT APPRO ACH THE AO IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASE BUT RATHER IGNORED THE LAST CALL ALSO AND THEREBY THEY THEMSELVES HAVE INVITED THE ASSESSMENT TO BE FRAMED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE APPROACH OF ASSESSEE AND AR, IT CANNOT BE EXPECTED AO TO BECOME M ERE AN OBSERVER. HE OUGHT TO ACT AND PROCEED TO EXERCISE THE POWERS GIVEN BY THE STATUTE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AO HAS DONE WHAT SHE IS REQUIRED TO DO AS PER LAW. THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF AO. 8 ITA NO. 411 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2011 - 12 IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 13. WE OBSERVE THAT FACTS ARE VERY CLEAR ON THIS ISSUE. SINCE EVEN AFTER PROVIDING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER AVAIL ED THOSE OPPORTUNITIES AND AS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) BEFORE MAKING THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT, THE SAID INTENTION WAS CONVEYED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER STILL THEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BOTHERED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT NOTICES HAVE NO T REACHED AT HIS REGISTERED ADDRESS GIVEN TO THE DEPARTMENT. ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS ON RECORD OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE NOTICES WERE DULY SERVED APPROPRIATELY AS PER LAW AND WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) IS UP HELD ON THIS ISSUE AND GROUND NO.2 RAISED IN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT , APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 02 ND DAY OF DECEMBER , 20 20 . SD/ - SD/ - INTURI RAMA RAO PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 02 ND DECEMBER , 2020. SB 9 ITA NO. 411 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2011 - 12 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEAL) - 1, KOLHAPUR. 4. THE PR. CIT - 1, KOLHAPUR. 5 . , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6 . / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE . 10 ITA NO. 411 /PUN/20 17 A.Y. 2011 - 12 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 0 2 . 12 .2020 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 02 . 12 .2020 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER