ASAVARI MANOHAR RAJOPADHYE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 24(1)(1), MUMBAI

At the outset, we notice that none appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called out repeatedly. From the records, I noticed that the notice was issued to the assessee through speed-post and e-mail, but even then, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee and even no application for seeking adjournment has been filed. Therefore, drawing inference from the General Clauses Act, it is presumed that since notices were issued on the correct address supplied by the assessee in Form-36, therefore, it is presumed that service was duly effected. Hence assessee is proceeded ex parte.

Ld. DR present in the court and is ready with the arguments, therefore, I have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex parte.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration, however, information available with the department indicated that the assessee had made substantial cash and time deposits in her bank account, accordingly re-assessment proceedings were initiated after following due process of law. The AO observed that the onus to prove the nature and sales of the cash deposits was upon the assessee who fail to discharge, thus, in the absence of any credible evidence, the entire cash deposit by the assessee amounting to Rs. 30,54,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Even during the appellate proceedings, the assessee could not substantiate the grounds raised by her, consequently the appeal of the assessee was also dismissed. The operative portion of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced hereinbelow;-

The appeal in the present case was filed on 11.05.2024 against the assessment order dated 15.03.2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the A Y 2015-16 The appeal sought condonation of delay on the ground of lack of knowledge of income-tax laws and delay in engaging a Chartered Accountant. After considering the reasons stated and in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the appeal was admitted for adjudication.

1 The assessee is an individual who had not filed her return of income for the d her return relevant assessment year on the ground that her income was below the basic exemption limit. Based on information available with the department regarding

2 During the reassessment proceedings, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. While the assessee partly complied with certain notices, there was non-compliance to the notice dated 05.10.2023. A show cause notice was issued thereafter, and upon the assessee's request, an opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing was granted and conducted on 07.03.2024. Based on information collected u/s 133(6) of the Act from Saraswat Co-operative Bank, it was noticed that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.30,54,000/- in her bank account during the relevant previous year. During the submissions, the assessee explained that the cash deposits represented gifts received on the occasion of her marriage and relied upon wedding photographs and general submissions made during the video-conference hearing. However, no documentary evidence such as gift confirmations, details of donors, their identity, capacity, or any corroborative material was furnished to substantiate the claim. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon her to explain the nature and source of the cash deposits and accordingly treated the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, making an addition of Rs.30,54,000/- to the total income.

3 During the appellate proceedings also, several notices u/s 250 of the Act were issued to the appellant. Despite these opportunities, the appellant did not file any written submissions or additional evidence and relied only on the Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal filed in Form No.

The grounds raised mainly challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings and the addition made u/s 69A of the Act on the plea that gifts received on marriage are exempt u/s 56 of the Act. After careful

Accordingly, the addition of Rs.30,54,000/- made u/s 69A of the Act is upheld. All the grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed, and the appeal is dismissed on merits.

Since the assessee has not appeared and has not rebutted the contentions raised in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), therefore, I find no reasons to interfere into the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), hence, I dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee and uphold the order passed by Ld. CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.