EHTHE SHAM,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1,& TPS, HASSAN, HASSAN

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 28.06.2025, 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 2017-18.

1) The order passed by the learned Commissioner of income tax (Appels) NFAC, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case. 2) The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed to a total income of Rs. 2,30,65,730/- against the returned income of Rs.3,53,180/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3) The order of assessment passed by the learned assessing officer under Section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act is bad in law since the mandatory conditions as envisaged in the Act to assume jurisdiction under section 148 did not exist or having not been complied with and consequently, the reassessment requires to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the cash deposits of Rs.2,27,12,550/- into the Appellant’s bank account are directly attributable to the proceeds from their sales on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the profit margin of the business is 2.06% of the turnover on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant made daily cash deposits, and these funds were subsequently withdrawn from the bank accounts on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7) The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the peak credit method is the appropriate approach for determining the appellant’s income on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8) The learned CIT(A) failed appreciate that the appellant has maintained books of account and audited by a chartered accountant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the cash deposits were made out of known sources and the provisions of section 69A were not attracted in the instant case,on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act, since the same are not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 11) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete or substitute any or all of the grounds, to file detailed paper book at the time of hearing the appeal.

12) In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed and appropriate relief may be granted in the interest of justice and equity. 3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and, for the year under consideration, did not file his original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. On the basis of the information available with the department, that the assessee has made cash deposits amounting of a total of Rs. 2,27,12,550/- in its two bank accounts maintained with Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2021. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 3,53,180/-. Thereafter, statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. However, the assessee remained non-responsive. In the present case, the notices were also delivered to the assessee’s registered address, but there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, in the absence of any reply from the assessee, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) proceeded to complete the assessment on a best judgment basis under section 144 of the Act on the basis of the material available on record. The AO vide order dated 21.03.2022 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act treated the entire cash deposits of Rs. 2,27,12,550/- as unexplained money of the assessee under section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee.

*VM* Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. CIT(A)

By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT,Bangalore

Page 5 of 5