Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL
Date of Hearing – 06/02/2023 Date of Order – 07/02/2023
O R D E R PER BENCH
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 25/08/2022, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2013-14.
When this appeal was called for hearing neither anyone appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application seeking adjournment filed. From the perusal of record, we find that even on a previous occasion also no Ms. Roshanara Binder ITA no.2621/Mum./2022 one appeared on behalf of the assessee, and the notices issued to the assessee through Registered Post A/D, at the address provided in Form No.36, were returned unserved. Therefore, in view of the above, we proceed to dispose off the present appeal ex–parte, qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative (“learned D.R.”) and based on the material available on record.
In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:
“In the case of Mrs Roshanara Bhinder, 93, Bldg No 2C, windermere, Near Shantivan, Mahada New Link Road, Andheri Mumbai-400053. Against the order passed by The Income Tax Officer 24(3)(4), Mumbai u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2013 -14.
The learned AO has ex-facie erred in law by adding the entire amount of cash deposit of Rs.6,30,000/- in taxable income and tax was computed accordingly by the learned officer whereas there existed a sufficient legitimate explanation for such cash. The case deposited was not the income but arose out of the income which was already taxed. Therefore, the same income had been doubly taxed in the present case.
2. The learned A.O has wrongfully disallowed the deduction of Chapter VIA amounting to Rs. 50,000/- which was duly claimed on account of the tuition fees paid by the assessee during the financial year.
3. The learned A.O had erroneously added the entire LTCG of Rs. 1,10,63,539/– without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The learned AO as well as CIT had failed to give the opportunity of being heard in the present case and passed the ex-parte orders which are in violation of the principles of natural justice.
5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any ground or grounds of appeal and submit the detailed statement of facts on or before the hearing of the appeal.”
The brief facts of the case are: The assessee is an individual and has shown income for the year under consideration under the heads „income from house property‟, „income from business and profession‟, „capital gains‟, and „income from other sources‟. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed her return of income on 22/07/2014, declaring a total income of Rs.6,77,770. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for Page | 2
Ms. Roshanara Binder ITA no.2621/Mum./2022 scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, details in respect of banking transactions of the assessee with Oriental Bank of Commerce were sought. On perusal of the details, it was observed that the assessee has deposited huge cash in her saving account. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to furnish the details in respect of the source of cash deposited to the tune of Rs.6,30,000. In reply thereto, the assessee submitted that she has withdrawn cash from the Bank of Baroda and the same was deposited in the account maintained with the Oriental Bank of Commerce. However, the assessee could not furnish any supporting documents/evidence in support of her claim and also could not submit the balance sheet, profit and loss account, or capital account. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 23/03/2016, passed under section 143(3) of the Act treated the cash deposited as cash credits within the meaning of section 68 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. In absence of any documentary evidence in support of assessee‟s claim of tuition fees amounting to Rs.50,000, the AO disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs.50,000, under Chapter VI-A of the Act. Vide assessment order, the AO also computed the long-term capital gain of Rs.1,10,63,529, in respect of the property sold and added the same to the total income of the assessee.
The learned CIT(A), during the appellate proceedings, issued several notices dated 24/02/2021, 16/12/2021, 27/07/2022, 10/08/2022, and 17/08/2022. However, the assessee did not respond to any notice during the Ms. Roshanara Binder ITA no.2621/Mum./2022 appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by considering the material available on record. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.
During the hearing, the learned D.R. explained the facts of the case and vehemently relied upon the order of the lower authorities.
Having heard the learned D.R. and perused the material available on record, we find that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee did not file complete details in support of its claim and even before the learned CIT(A) no submission/details were filed despite multiple opportunities being granted. Now in the present appeal before us there is no representation of/on behalf of the assessee. From the conduct of the assessee, it appears that the assessee is not interested in pursuing litigation against the additions made by the AO. Therefore, in the absence of any contradictory material being available on record, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), upholding the additions made by the AO, requires no interference and, thus, is upheld. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07/02/2023