Shri Dineshchandra Bhailal Gandhi, Surat V. The ACIT., Cent.Circle-2, Surat

ITSSA 231/AHD/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9547 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-09-2005
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHELLEY JINDAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Condonation of delay
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND A. N. PAHUJA, A M) IT (SS) A NO.91/AHD/2005 BLOCK PERIOD: 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 DINESH CHANDRA BHAILAL GANDHI, 3, MAADHUBA PARK, OPP. DHOBI NO. KHANCHO, AHAJAN ROAD, SURAT 395009 PA NO. ACAPG 7352 B VS THE C. I. T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, 3 RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT (SS) A NO.231/AHD/2005 BLOCK PERIOD: 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 DINESH CHANDRA BHAILAL GANDHI, 3, MADHUBA PARK, OPP. DHOBI NO. KHANCHO, AHAJAN ROAD, SURAT 395009 PA NO. ACAPG 7352 B VS THE A. C. I. T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, ROOM NO.504, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI SHELLEY JINDAL, DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS ORDER SHALL DISPOSE OFF BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DIRECTED AGAINST D IFFERENT ORDERS OF THE CIT AND THE CIT(A), AHMEDABAD, AS UNDER. IT (SS)A NO.91/AHD/2005 2. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD DATED 26 -03-2004 U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT. IT(SS)A NO. 91 AND 231/AHD/2005 DINESH CHANDRA BHAILAL GANDHI 2 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSMENT IN THIS CASE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD WAS MADE U/S 158BC OF THE IT A CT ON 31-07-2001 ON THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.52,57,060/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE BLOC K PERIOD. HOWEVER, EVEN AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT DA TED 20-03-2002, THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNCHANG ED AT RS.52,57,060/-. THE LEARNED CIT EXAMINED THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE PASSED THE FOLLOWING OPERATIVE ORDER IN PARA 8 OF T HE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: 8. THEREFORE, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS VESTED IN ME U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, I RESTORE THE AFORE SAID MATTERS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE IS DIRECTED TO FIND OU T AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS A NEXUS BETWEEN THE UNDISCLOSED S ALARY RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE DETERMINED BY HIM (THE ASS ESSING OFFICER) AT RS.6 LACS, RS.9 LACS AND RS.3 LACS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 1997-98, 1998-99 AND 1999-2000 (UPTO THE DATE OF SEARCH) RESPECTIVELY AND THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS/EXPENDITURE ETC. OF THE ASSESSEE DETERM INED AT RS.14,27,322/-, RS.7,40,567/- AND RS.5,65,388/- FOR THE AFORESAID FINANCIAL YEARS. IF NO SUCH NEXUS CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SUMS OF RS.6 LACS, RS .9 LACS AND RS.3 LACS SHOULD BE ADDED ALONGWITH THE SUM OF UNDI SCLOSED INVESTMENTS/EXPENDITURE DETERMINED AT RS.36,99,368/ - TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE AS SESSING OFFICER SHOULD ALSO ASCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER THE UND ISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.3,01,740/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD COULD BE COVE RED BY THE AMOUNTS OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT/EXPENDITURE AND R ECEIPTS WORKED OUT BY HIM IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. IF HE (THE ASSESSING OFFICER)IS UNABLE TO GIVE SUCH A FINDING, THE SUM OF RS.3,01,740/- SHOULD ALSO BE ADDED TO THE UNDISCLOS ED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE IN PARA 9 OF THE APPEAL PAPERS STAT ED 31-03-2004 TO BE THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION OF THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST. THE APPEAL IS HOWEVER, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL ON 22-03-2005. THUS, AS PER THE REGISTRY THE APPEAL IS TIME BARED BY 296 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE IN THE IT(SS)A NO. 91 AND 231/AHD/2005 DINESH CHANDRA BHAILAL GANDHI 3 APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY EXPLAINED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 31-03-2004 AND THE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON OR BEFORE 30 -05-2004. BUT IT COULD NOT BE SO FILED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT TILL THE FINDING IS GIVEN AND THE INSTRUCTIONS ARE ACTED UPON BY THE AO, THERE IS NO ORDER WHICH CAN CAUSE PREJUDICE AND HENCE NO APPEAL WAS FILED. THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE AVERMENTS IS ALSO FILED. IT IS, THEREFORE, REQUESTED THAT THE DELAY MAY BE CONDONED . 5. THE RECORD REVEALS THAT THE APPEAL IS TAKEN UP F OR HEARING SINCE 24-05-2005 AND THE ASSESSEE ON ONE OR OTHER REASONS WAS SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. ON 23-04-2008, THE TRIBUNAL HAS GRANTE D LAST OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE THE APPEAL, DESPITE THAT THE ASSESSEE ON T HE REASON OF CONSOLIDATION OF APPEALS, TAKING UP APPEAL AT SURAT CAMP AND OTHERS WAS CONTINUOUSLY SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. THE RECORD FURTHE R REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE CAME UP WITH ANOTHER PLEA FOR ADJOURNMENT THAT SOME APPEALS ARE PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN WHICH THE ISSUE OF NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE IT ACT IS ALSO RAISED. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT APPEAL IS LIKELY TO BE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING BY LEARNED CIT (A) IN SEPTEMBER 2009, DECEMBER 2009 AND AGAIN IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 20 10. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON THE ASSESSEE. REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS AGAIN MADE O N THE SAME REASONS. THE REASONS FOR ADJOURNMENT HAVE NO CONNEC TION WITH THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT. CONSIDERING THE HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE IN SEEKING ADJOURNMENT SINCE THE YEAR 2005 , WE DO NOT FIND IT TO BE AN APPROPRIATE CAUSE TO GRANT ADJOURNMENT IN THE MATTER. THESE ARE OLD APPEALS. WE, ACCORDINGLY, REJECT THE REQUEST FO R ADJOURNMENT AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 6. AS NOTED ABOVE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE APPLIC ATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR IT(SS)A NO. 91 AND 231/AHD/2005 DINESH CHANDRA BHAILAL GANDHI 4 CONDONATION OF DELAY AND MATERIAL IS TAKEN INTO CON SIDERATION. THE LEARNED DR OBJECTED TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THE MATTER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED ANY R EASONABLE CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY. 7. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED DR, WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS CLEARLY TIME BARRED AND LIABLE TO BE DI SMISSED. ACCORDING TO SECTION 253 (5) OF THE IT ACT, THE APPELLATE TRIBUN AL MAY ADMIT AN APPEAL AFTER EXPIRY OF THE RELEVANT PERIOD PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT, IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE APPEAL WITHIN THAT PERIOD. SUFFICIENT CAUSE WOULD MEAN A CAUSE WHICH I S BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. SUFFICIENT CAUSE MEANS WHICH PREVE NTS A REASONABLE MAN OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE ACTING UNDER NORMAL CIRCUM STANCES, WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE OR INACTION OR WANT OF BONA FIDE. HOWEVE R, CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION AS NOTED ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AS SESSEE DELIBERATELY DID NOT PREFER THE APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DE SPITE IT WAS COMMUNICATED TO HIM. THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT WOULD NOT BE ACTED UPON. ONCE THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT IS PASSED, THE AO IS BOUND TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH TH E DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT. SINCE THE AS SESSEE DELIBERATELY CHOOSE NOT TO PREFER ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT, THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATI ON. 8. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REFER TO SOME OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. IN THE CASE OF HIND DEVELOPMENT CORPN., VS. ITO (1979) 118 ITR 873 , THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT A TRIBUNAL CAN CONDONE THE DEL AY IF THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPEAL. IN THE CASE IT(SS)A NO. 91 AND 231/AHD/2005 DINESH CHANDRA BHAILAL GANDHI 5 OF VEDABHAI ALIAS VIJAYANATABAI BABURAO PATIL VS. S HANTARAM BABURAO PATIL (2002) 253 ITR 798 (SC), WHERE IT WAS HELD TH AT WHILE EXERCISING DISCRETION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1 963, TO CONDONE DELAY FOR SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHI N THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED, COURTS SHOULD ADOPT A PRAGMATIC APPROACH. A DISTINC TION MUST BE MADE BETWEEN A CASE WHERE THE DELAY IS INORDINATE AND A CASE WHERE DELAY IS OF A FEW DAYS. THE COURT OBSERVED THAT WHEREAS IN THE FORMER CONSIDERATION OF PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER SIDE WILL BE RELEVANT FAC TOR AND CALLS FOR A MORE CAUTIOUS APPROACH. IN THE LATTER CASE NO SUCH CONSI DERATION MAY ARISE AND SUCH A CASE DESERVES A LIBERAL APPROACH. NOW IN THE PRESENT CASE DELAY IS NOT OF A FEW DAYS BUT OF MORE THAN TEN MON THS. BESIDES, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO VALID EXPLANATION/REASON FOR THE DELA Y. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RAM MOHAN KABRA (2002) 257 ITR 773, THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS HELD AND OBSERVED THAT WHERE THE LEG ISLATURE SPELLS OUT A PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND PROVIDES FOR POWER TO COND ONE THE DELAY AS WELL, SUCH DELAY CAN ONLY BE CONDONED ONLY FOR SUFFICIENT AND GOOD REASONS SUPPORTED BY COGENT AND PROPER EVIDENCE. IT IS A SE TTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SPECIFIED PERIOD OF LIMITATION MUST BE APPLIED WITH THEIR RIGOUR AND EFFECTIVE CONSEQUENCE S. IN THIS CASE DELAY FOR FILING THE APPEAL LATE FOR ONLY A FEW DAYS WAS NOT CONDONED. IN THE CASE OF ASSTT. CIT V. TAGGAS INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT LTD. (2002) 80 ITD 21 (CAL), TRIBUNAL, CALCUTTA BENCH, CALCUTTA, DID N OT CONDONE THE DELAY FOR FILING THE APPEAL LATE BY 13 DAYS BECAUSE THE D ELAY WAS NOT DUE TO SUFFICIENT CAUSE. 9. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND FACTS OF T HE CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF UNDISCLOSED SALARY AND UNDISCLOSED INC OME WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED EARLIER BY THE AO PROPERLY. THEREFORE, T HERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY BONA FIDE BELIEF ON THE PART OF THE ASSESS EE NOT TO PREFER ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SINCE THE DIRECT IONS OF THE LEARNED IT(SS)A NO. 91 AND 231/AHD/2005 DINESH CHANDRA BHAILAL GANDHI 6 COMMISSIONER ARE ALL TOGETHER DIFFERENT AS NOTED AB OVE, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE IT ACT AS RAISED IN THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION IS ALSO ALL TOGETHER DIFFERENT TO THE M ATTER IN ISSUE. THE ABOVE FACTS, THEREFORE, WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DELIBERATELY SEEKING ADJOURNMENT ON FRIVOLOUS GROUND AND ON THE MATTER W HICH IS ALL TOGETHER DIFFERENT TO THE MATER IN CONTROVERSY. THE ASSESSEE HAS THUS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEYOND THE P ERIOD OF LIMITATION. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE DELAY IN THE M ATTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDONED. WE ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TIME BARED AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED BEING TIME BARRED. IT (SS) A NO.231/AHD/20 05 10. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, AHMEDABAD DATED 09-08-20045 FOR THE ABOVE BLOCK PERIOD U/S 158BC READ WITH SECTION 263 OF THE IT AC T. 11. THIS APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ALONG WITH IT(SS)A NO.91/AHD/2005. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR CLUBBING OF THE APPEAL WHICH IS CLUBBED BY THE OFFICE. 12. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE AS NOTED ABOVE. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE ISSUE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 13. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITIONS OF RS.18,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED SALARY REC EIPTS AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.3,01,740/-. 14. THE AO AS PER THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSI ONER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT DATED 26-03-2004 TAKEN UP ASSESSM ENT AGAIN ON THE IT(SS)A NO. 91 AND 231/AHD/2005 DINESH CHANDRA BHAILAL GANDHI 7 ISSUE AS DIRECTED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IN RE SPECT OF UNDISCLOSED SALARY AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME NOTED ABOVE IN PARA 8 OF THE ORDER U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT. THE AO GAVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. THE AO CONSIDERING THE REPLY O F THE ASSESSEE NOTED THAT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RECEIVING SALARY IN CASH FROM PROCESS HOUSE. THE CONFLICTING STATEMENT WAS RECORDED DURING THE S EARCH PROCEEDINGS AS UNDER: (I) SMT. JAYASHREE D. GANDHI, WIFE OF THE OF THE AS SESSEE STATED THAT HER HUSBAND IS GETTING SALARY OF RS.75,000/- P ER MONTH. (II) THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE GETS ONLY RS.22,00 0/- TO 25,000/-. (III) SHRI KHUSHALDAS I. TULSIANI, DIRECTOR OF CALI SON FIBERS PVT. LTD. STATED THAT RS.51,000/- PER MONTH IS PAID TO S HRI GANDHI. THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKING WITH M/S. CALISON FIBERS PVT. LTD. FOR THE LAST 24 MONTHS BEFORE THE SEARCH. 15. THE AO NOTED THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 13 2(4) OF THE IT ACT HAS AN EVIDENTIARY VALUE AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF N. R. PAPERS & BOARD LTD. ACCO RDINGLY, UNDISCLOSED SALARY RECEIPTS WERE DETERMINED AT RS.6,00,000/-, R S.9,00,000/- AND RS.3,00,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99, 199 9-2000 AND 2000- 01 RESPECTIVELY. AS PER THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CO MMISSIONER, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO PROVE THE NEXUS BETWEEN U NACCOUNTED SALARY RECEIPTS AND UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS/EXPENDITURE. T HE AO NOTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED TO THE ABOVE ADDIT IONS BUT HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO PROVE THE NEXUS. THE AO ACCORDINGLY MA DE ADDITION OF RS.18,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEES UNDISCLOSED INCOME. AS REGARDS AMOUNT OF RS.3,01,740/-, THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SIMPLY STATED THAT AFORESAID AMOUNT IS COVERED BY ASSESSED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.52,57,060/- BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED T HAT THE UNDISCLOSED IT(SS)A NO. 91 AND 231/AHD/2005 DINESH CHANDRA BHAILAL GANDHI 8 INCOME OF RS.3,01,740/- IS COVERED BY THE SAME AMOU NT. ADDITION OF THE SAME WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE. THE AO ACCORDINGLY COMPU TED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER: UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS PER THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO CIT(A) ORDER DATED 02-05-2002 RS.52,57, 060/- ADD: UNDISCLOSED SALARY RECEIPTS RS.18,00,000/- ADD: UNDISCLOSED INCOME RS. 3,01,740/- TOTAL RS.73,58,800/- 16. BOTH THE ADDITIONS WERE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE L EARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) HOWEVER, UPHELD BOTH THE ADDITIONS B ECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE NEXUS BETWEEN UNACCOUNTED SALAR Y RECEIPTS AND UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS AND INCOME. THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE ON THESE ISSUES WAS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 17. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN BOTH THE ADDITIONS BEFORE THE AO WHICH HAVE BEEN D IRECTED BY THE LEARNED CIT AS PER ORDER U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT, THE REFORE, ADDITIONS ARE JUSTIFIED. 18. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND T HE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTER FERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE MATTER. THE LEARNED CIT IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT HAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED THE AO TO EXAMINE BOTH THE PO INTS IN ISSUE. OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN TH E SAME ALSO. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE ISSUES. AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE, THEREFO RE, JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AND UPHOLDING THE ABOVE ADDITIONS. AS NOTED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT SEEKING ADJOURNMENT IN THE MATTER ON THE GROUND OF NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE IT ACT IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS , HAS NOT ARGUED OR IT(SS)A NO. 91 AND 231/AHD/2005 DINESH CHANDRA BHAILAL GANDHI 9 PRODUCED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTRADICT THE F INDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT, THEREFORE, STANDS PROVED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION AT ALL TO EXPLAIN THE ABOVE ADDITIONS. THE ASSESSEE IS SOLELY RELYING UPON NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF TH E IT ACT IN EARLIER PROCEEDINGS WOULD ALSO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N O MATERIAL TO EXPLAIN BOTH THE ISSUE ON MERITS. WE, THEREFORE, FI ND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO RELIABLE OR COGENT EVIDENCE TO PRODUCE ON RE CORD TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. WE CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND D ISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 19. AS A RESULT, IT(SS)A NO.231/AHD/2005 IS ALSO DI SMISSED. 20. AS A RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05-02-2010 SD/- SD/- (A. N. PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 05-02-2010 LAKSHMIKANT/- IT(SS)A NO. 91 AND 231/AHD/2005 DINESH CHANDRA BHAILAL GANDHI 10 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD