Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-PATNA‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Rajesh Kumar
order : January 06, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhagalpur dated 14.12.2019 passed for Assessment Year 2016-17.
Continuously notices have been issued to the assessee more than 5-6 times, but no one has come
Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Basudev Prasad Gupta present. Neither any information regarding latest address, etc. has been given. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to proceed ex parte qua the assessee.
The grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.26,64,500/-.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 10.09.2016 declaring total income of Rs.35,36,150/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee contended that he is engaged in the business of seasonal products and stone chips from which gross turnover of Rs.26,03,000/- was achieved. The assessee has declared income of Rs.2,81,328/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that a cash deposit of Rs.75,31,500/- was made into the Bank accounts maintained with Bank of Baroda, Central Bank of India and State Bank of India. He further observed that during April to August, 2015, the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.13,30,500/-. However, in Financial Year 2015-16, further cash of Rs.62,01,000/- was deposited and this was deposited out of alleged sale of land. The ld. Assessing Officer requested the assessee to please explain this source of cash but nothing was submitted Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Basudev Prasad Gupta before the ld. Assessing Officer. Accordingly ld. Assessing Officer has made the addition of Rs.13,30,500/- on account of cash deposit in the Bank Account. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter observed that cash were deposited between November, 2015 and January, 2016. He worked out the details of such deposits and thereafter made the addition of Rs.15,34,000/- on account of shortage of the explained source of cash. The finding of the ld. Assessing Officer reads as under:- Rs.62,01,000/- Less: Sale Proceeds of Rs.41,47,000/- land made during the period Cash withdrawals Rs.5,20,000/- made from CBI on 30.12.2015 Rs.46,67,000/- Balance Rs.15,34,000/- Thus the balance cash deposits made into the bank accounts of the assessee for the sum of Rs.1534,000/- is considered as unexplained money of the assessee that was deposited into bank a/cs. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, the sum of Rs.26.64.500/- [Rs.11,30,500/- + Rs.15,34,000/-] is hereby added in the hands of assessee u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961, considering the same as his unexplained money since no satisfactory explanations about the nature and sources thereof were offered from his side. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 61 is initiated on this addition for concealment of such incomes.
Accordingly, the total income of the assessee is hereby assessed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as per computation made hereunder:- 3
Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Basudev Prasad Gupta
Total income as per ITR : Rs.35,36,150/- Add. Unexplained money u/s 69A vide para3.1 & II : Rs.26,64,500/- _______________ Total : Rs.62,00,650/- _______________
Since no one has appeared before the ld. CIT(Appeals) nor before the Tribunal, the case of the ld. Assessing Officer is that the assessee has deposited Rs.62,01,000/- from November, 2015 to January, 2016 and he was unable to explain the source. Therefore, he worked out the addition of Rs.15,34,000/-. The case of the assessee, on the other hand, in the statement of fact is that the assessee received cash on sale of land, but he is unable to explain that.
In the last date of hearing, a letter dated 12.08.2022 was sent by the assessee to the Tribunal, wherein he has raised an additional ground of appeal. He contended that assessment order is time-barred because it was alleged that it was passed on 22.12.2018, whereas it was handed over to the Post Office on 15.01.2019. The ld. D.R. in this connection submitted that it was a period when electronic mode of service was available. The order was sent to the assessee by Mail on 22.12.2018 at 8:24 p.m. He submitted before us those aspects. Therefore, to our mind, there is no delay in service of order including demand notice upon the assessee.
Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Basudev Prasad Gupta
In view of the above discussion and perusal of the ld. CIT(Appeals)’s order, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06.01.2023.