Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal challenging the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and an adjournment application was rejected as it lacked details. The revenue authorities made an addition under section 69A for unexplained cash deposits.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of explaining the nature and source of the sum credited. The claim of acting as a "conduit" for money transfer was not substantiated with documentary evidence, hence the addition was rightly treated as unexplained.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO for unexplained cash deposit is justified when the assessee claims to be a conduit but provides no documentary evidence.
Sections Cited
250, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 27.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 04.07.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2017-18.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee either physically or virtually when the case was called repeatedly, however an application for seeking adjournment has been received through e-mail. After going through the contents of the application I find that no details have been mentioned in the same and only 2 Milind Amrut Patil, Mumbai. a general statement for filing paper book has been mentioned. No reasons have been mentioned by the assessee as to why the documents if any were not filed along with the appeal at the time of instituting the appeal before the Tribunal. I also noticed that the present appeal was filed on 29.08.2025 and approximately two months have already been passed but no efforts have been made by the assessee to place on record any documents. Since adjournment is not the right of the litigant therefore in my view the said application filed in a just a casual and cavalier manner to delay the judicial proceedings, therefore the same stands dismissed.
Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments, therefore I have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte.
I have heard Ld. DR and perused the material placed on record and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records I noticed that the addition in this case was made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act and to counter the said additions, although assessee had filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but the same was dismissed. Since it was assesse’s onus to explain the nature and source of any sum credited in his books of account or found in his position that is not accounted for, but in this regard assessee has failed to discharge its onus. The only claim of the assessee is that he was acting as a “conduit” for money transfer through M.Pesa but no documentary evidence has been placed on record by the 3 Milind Amrut Patil, Mumbai. assessee before any of the revenue authorities to substantiate the specific transactions for the entire unexplained amount.
Since the assessee failed to establish the source of deposit amount to the explain of Rs. 32,22,775/- by producing relevant documentary evidence therefore cash deposit of Rs. 32,22,775/- was rightly treated by the revenue authorities as unexplained.
No new facts or circumstances have been placed on record before me in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, I see no reasons to interfere into or to deviate from the lawful findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the grounds raised and by the assessee stands dismissed.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.