MANOJ GUPTA,FATEHGARH SAHIB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDI GOBINDGARH

The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 04 days in filing the present appeal.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR made an oral request for condonation of the said delay.

The Learned Ld. DR raised no objection to the condonation of the delay.

Considering the submissions made and in view of the absence of any objection from the Ld. DR, the delay of 04 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication.

At the outset, the Ld.AR sought an adjournment on account of preoccupation with year-end proceedings. However, considering the fact that sufficient opportunities had already been granted at various stages and that the appeals have remained pending for a considerable period, the request for adjournment was declined, and the matters were heard on the merits.

3 791 & 792-CHD-2025 7. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading in iron and steel. For the relevant assessment years, the assessee filed returns of income under the presumptive provisions. Subsequently, on the basis of information available with the department, the cases were taken up for scrutiny/reassessment. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had carried out substantial financial transactions in certain bank accounts that were either not disclosed or not properly explained in the return of income.

During the course of assessment proceedings, several statutory notices issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act remained uncomplied with. Even the final show cause notices were not responded to. In the absence of any explanation or supporting evidence from the assessee, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessments under section 144 of the Act. In A.Y. 2017–18, the Assessing Officer treated the bank credits as business turnover and estimated income @ 8%, resulting in addition to the returned income. In A.Y. 2018–19, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had withdrawn cash aggregating to Rs. 22,99,23,723/- from multiple bank accounts maintained with Axis Bank, Yes Bank and ICICI Bank, which were not disclosed in the 4 791 & 792-CHD-2025 return of income, and in the absence of any explanation, treated the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.

Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). However, even during the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to make any effective compliance despite several opportunities. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, proceeded to decide the appeals on the basis of material available on record and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer, holding that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus cast upon him.

Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not properly represent the case before the lower authorities due to circumstances beyond control and requested that the matter be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer or the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing one more opportunity.

Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly opposed the contentions of the assessee and relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted that the assessee has consistently failed to comply with statutory notices issued during the course of assessment and appellate proceedings. The Ld. DR further submitted that the Assessing Officer had issued multiple notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1), followed by a final show cause notice, but the assessee

5 791 & 792-CHD-2025 failed to furnish any explanation, compelling the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act.

11.1 The Ld. DR further elaborated that the Assessing Officer, on the basis of information gathered, found that the assessee had carried out substantial financial transactions through undisclosed bank accounts. In particular, for A.Y. 2018–19, the assessee had made cash withdrawals aggregating to Rs. 22,99,23,723/- from various bank accounts, the details of which are duly recorded in the assessment order. It was submitted that the assessee neither disclosed these bank accounts in the return of income nor furnished any explanation regarding the source of deposits leading to such withdrawals.

11.2 It was further contended by the Ld. DR that the primary onus to explain the nature and source of such substantial transactions was upon the assessee, which remained undischarged. In the absence of any explanation, the Assessing Officer rightly invoked the provisions of section 69A of the Act and treated the amount as unexplained money. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed the order after detailed examination of available material

6 791 & 792-CHD-2025 and in accordance with law, and the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the additions.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the assessee has not complied with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Further, even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed to make any effective representation or file any supporting evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) has recorded a categorical finding regarding non-compliance and has decided the appeals on merits based on the material available on record. Admittedly no evidence has been filed before us, by the assessee nor an application for filing the additional evidence has been filed.