None for the Petitioner. R.A. Dyani, Addl.CIT for the Respondent.

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Ahmedabad [CIT(A) in short] vide appeal no.CIT(A)-3/264/Wd.3(3)(1)/16-17 dated 22/03/2018 arising in the assessment order passed under s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 01/12/2011 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in passing an ex-parte order without proper consideration and appreciation of facts and circumstances at appellant's end as explained to the Id. CIT(A). That since the appellant was in search of a new A.R., the previous A.R. having withdrawn his LOA as also admitted by the Id. CIT(A) in his order deciding penalty appeal, the appellant bonafidely presumed that he would be given some time prior to any adverse inference. The appellant thus humbly states that the appeal be set-aside to the file of the Id. CIT(A) for decision afresh in the interest of natural justice and equity.

2. That on the facts of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the best judgment assessment order passed by the AO u/s.144 of the Act without appreciating the fact that since the copy of AIR information leading to the addition in question having not been furnished by the AO though having been specifically asked for, the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in defending his case. The impugned assessment order thus requires to be quashed as bad in law and void-ab-initio on this ground itself.

3. The Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs.21,14,476/- on account of alleged unexplained investment u/s.69B of the Act made by the AO on contradictory observations.

4. The Id. CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating the fact that the entire transactions i.e. either unsecured loans or loans and advances having been routed through banking channels and keeping in view the fact that the source of the same being the transactions with the stock exchange, the impugned addition was even otherwise not justified in absence of any adverse material on record and hence the impugned addition of Rs.21,14,476/- requires to be deleted.

3. Today, the case was fixed for hearing but none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any adjournment application has been filed on record.

4. From the records, we observe that required notice was sent to the assessee by Registered Post which was duly served upon the assessee and in this respect acknowledgment from the Department of Posts has already been placed on record which shows that even in spite of service of notice, the assessee or his representative has not come before this Court for attending the hearing which goes to show that assessee is not interested in pursuing with his present appeal. However, Ld.DR present in the Court is ready to the arguments, therefore we proceed to decide the appeal on merits ex-parte qua the assessee, after hearing the Ld.DR.

5. We have heard the Ld.DR and perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by the revenue authorities. As per the facts of the present case, the assessee has indulged in a trading activity of stock exchange and as per AIR details with the Assessing Officer, the assessee made transaction of Rs.56,94,807/- in stock exchanges with the same time the assessee has made payment of Rs.33,09,504/- being payment made to credit card companies as per the AIR details.

6. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to explain the impugned investments but even in spite of availing numerous opportunities, the assessee could not explain the impugned investments. Thus, additions were made by the Assessing Officer.

7. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) but had not put appearance on several dates, therefore Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on merits. The operative portion of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is contained in paragraph No.5.1 of his order which is reproduced hereunder:

“5.1. Decision: I have persued the assessment order of the AO and the statement of facts filed by the appellant carefully. The AO has given substantial oppoertunities of being heard as per ratio laid down in the case of Rakesh C. Rastogi & Ans Vs. AA-253 ITR 94 (SC). However, the appellant could not or was not in a position to avail such opportunity to explain the investments in question. In fact the AO has noted that the appellant has expressed his inability to explain the impugned investment of Rs.21,14,476/-. Notwithstanding the recording by the A.O., number of opportunities were given by this office from 02.02.2015 onwards but to no avail. No new evidence were filed under Rule 46A, therefore, no remand report was called from the A.O. The assessing officer has computed addition u/s.69B in para 4.4 of assessment order as under:

Sr.No. Name Amount (Rs.)

1. Baldevbhai Patel 71,000/-

2. B.G. Chauidh 8,8000/-

3. Dahyalal Lavajibhai 3,000/-

4. Indubhai Vasoya 5,000/-

5. Jehan Bomi Sarkari 2,75,000/-

6. Nandi Enterprise 14,35,000/-

7. Prakash 10,000/-

8. R.D.Mobile World 61,000/-

9. S.K. Traders 49,900/-

10. Star Enterprise 1,74,830/-

11. ZCG Lenc Care 50,946/-

Grand Total 21,44,476/-

I have carefully examined the above list of creditors. In my opinion, small creditors such as Sr.No.2, 3, 4 & 7 may not be cooperative with the appellant. Principle of equity is kept in mind. Therefore, I decide to not confirm the amount of Rs.26,800/- so as to defray natural justice. However, I confirm the addition u/s.69B of Rs.21,17,676/-. The ground of appeal is party allowed.”

8. Although in the present appeal, assessee has raised four grounds but all the four grounds raised by the assessee are inter-connected, inter-related and relates to challenging the order of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investments u/s.69B of the Act.

9. After having gone through the facts of the present case, we find that the assessee miserably failed to explain the impugned assessment before Assessing Officer as well CIT(A). Therefore, the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) decided the orders against the assessee while making additions. Even before us, no new facts or circumstances have been placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities have also gone unrebutted, therefore, we find no reason to interfere into or to deviate from such findings of the authorities below and we uphold the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the ground raised by the Assessee.

10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.