Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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.