LATE GIAN SINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR NAROTTAM SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), GHAZIABAD
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to explain the source of cash deposits before the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), or the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee, since deceased, had deposited Rs. 13,40,000 cash into a savings bank account. The assessment was reopened, and since the assessee did not comply with notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte. The addition of unexplained income was sustained by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposits in the bank account were unexplained income. Whether the ex parte assessment was justified due to non-compliance by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 31.05.2017 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad for the assessment year 2008-09.
When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee.
On perusal of record, it is observed that, though, the appeal was fixed earlier for hearing on multiple occasions, however, the assessee had always remained absent. In fact, the record reveals that number of notices of hearing issued to the assessee, have returned back unserved.
Since, adequate opportunities have already been granted to the assessee, which he has failed to avail, I proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and based on material on record.
Briefly, the facts are, the assessee (since deceased) was a resident individual. Based on information available on record that in the year under consideration, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.13,40,000 in a Saving Bank Account held with Centurion Bank of Punjab. The assessing officer reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Act. Since, the assessee did not comply with the notices issued under Sections 148 and 142 (1) of the Act, the assessing officer proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte, to the best of his judgment, by invoking the provisions of section 144 of the Act. In absence of any evidence produced by the assessee to explain the source of cash deposits in the bank account, the assessing officer treated it as unexplained income and added back at the hands of the assessee. The addition made was sustained by the first appellate authority while deciding assessee’s appeal.
I have considered the submissions of learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record.
On perusal of record, it is evident, neither before the assessing officer nor before the first appellate authority, the assessee could furnish any evidence to explain the source of the cash deposits of Rs.13,14,000. In fact, the assessee never appeared before the assessing officer to explain the source of cash deposits. There is no improvement in the factual position before me as well, as, the assessee has neither appeared nor furnished any evidence to explain the source of cash deposits. In the aforesaid scenario, I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals).
Grounds are dismissed.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026