KHURSHID ALAM,GAYA vs ITO, WARD- 3 (1), GAYA

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad

Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income

ITA No. 116/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Khurshid Alam Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 17th March, 2023 passed for A.Y. 2017-18.

The assessee has taken thirteen grounds of appeal, which are argumentative in nature. In brief, it has challenged- (a) reopening of assessment;

(b) confirmation of addition amounting to Rs.22,15,000/-;

(d) dismissal of appeal on account of non- prosecution by the ld. 1st Appellate Authority.

It has been informed to us by Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, under whose signature the appeal was filed before the Tribunal that the assessee has expired and he has no legal heir. The Power of Attorney of Shri Rakesh Kumar is available on the record. It was filed on 16th May, 2023.

With the assistance of ld. Sr. D.R., we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that ld. Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order ex-parte under section 144 read with

ITA No. 116/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Khurshid Alam section 147 of the Income tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that during the period of demonetisation, assessee has made deposit of Rs.22,15,000/- in Savings Bank Account with State Bank of India, Gaya. The assessment was reopened under section 147 and notice was issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee did not appear before the ld. Assessing Officer in response to the notices issued under sections 143(2) an 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer has made the addition of cash deposit in the Bank account. He also observed that there were total cash credit of Rs.1,10,05,200/- during this financial year and assessee has carried out some business activities. He estimated the income at 8% of the total credit and in this way made an addition of Rs.7,03,216/-. The ld. Assessing Officer in this way determined the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.29,18,216/-.

Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee because no one appeared before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and no explanation regarding source of cash deposited in the Bank account was submitted.

Before us, it has been submitted that the assessee has died and did not leave behind any legal representative. There is no explanation at the end of the assessee about the source of cash deposited in the Bank as well as, as to

ITA No. 116/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Khurshid Alam why income ought not to be estimated at 8% of the alleged cash transactions discussed by the ld. Assessing Officer. Under these compelling circumstances, we confirm the addition. It is pertinent to observe that section 159, sub- section (2) would contemplate that taxes will be recovered from the person, who so far as inherited assets of the assessee. In other words, taxes will be recovered against any asset left behind the assessee. Therefore, this demand will be enforced qua the assets, if any, left behind the assessee.

With the above observation, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20.03.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Borad) (Rajpal Yadav) Accountant Member Vice-President Kolkata, the 20th day of March, 2024 Copies to : (1) Khurshid Alam, Durgabari Colony, Bari Road, Near Maszid, Gaya-823001, Bihar (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Gaya, Nagmatia Colony, Gaya-823001, Bihar

(3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi;

ITA No. 116/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Khurshid Alam (4) CIT- (5) The Departmental Representative (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By order

Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S.

KHURSHID ALAM,GAYA vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (1), GAYA