MURUGAN SHANMUGANATHAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, NON CORP. CICLE-22(1), CHENNAI

The order of the Learned AO/CIT (A) is opposed to the principles of natural justice, fair-play, and equity and is also opposed to the facts of the case.

The Learned CIT (A) has erred in adding the gross salary received when actually only the Taxable Salary ought to be assessed.

The Learned AO/CIT (A) failed to note that the exemptions and deductions which are available as per Form 16, have not been considered while assessing the income.

The Learned AO/CIT (A) has erred in treating the entire cash deposits as unexplained.

The Learned AO/CIT (A) ought to have noted that cash deposits have been made out of accumulated savings and other cash withdrawals, as well.

Without prejudice to the above, the Learned AO/CIT (A) ought to have followed peak credit concept.

Any other grounds as may be raised during the course of the hearing.

The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration the assessee had not filed Income Tax Return u/s. 139 of the Act. Information was received through RMS module of Insight Portal that during the Financial Year 2018- 19, the Assessee had received the following payments:

The AO proceeded u/s 148A (b) r.w.s. 148A (d) and 148 of the Act. Still assessee was non-responsive and no return was filed in response to notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. Ultimately the case of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 48, 86,620/- u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) who in turn dismissed the appeal of the assessee as there was no representation / compliance made by the assessee before him also. The details of opportunities given to the assessee during the first appellate proceedings are as under:-

The assessee being further aggrieved preferred an appeal before us. The appeal of the assessee was time barred by 454 days. The assessee filed an affidavit along with an application to condone the delay. We have gone through the affidavit filed by the assessee but the same is not found to be order to justify this delay of 454 days. It is observed that the assessee was always casual in pursuing the matter at all stages i.e. before the AO, before the Ld. CIT (A) and even before us.

Considering the facts supra and overall conduct of the assessee it is observed by us that except filing the appeals before various forums assessee is not at all interested in pursuing the matter effectively, in all fairness of the matter we are of the view that the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed.

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