Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order confirming additions made by the AO for unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 16,10,000 in his savings bank account for AY 2012-13. The assessee claimed the funds were from family members for a child's marriage, but failed to provide substantiating evidence.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to explain the source of the cash deposit in the bank account, even after opportunities during assessment and remand proceedings. The additions made by the AO were confirmed.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 16,10,000 as unexplained cash deposit in the bank account is justified when the assessee failed to provide evidence for the source of funds.
Sections Cited
250, 68, 147, 148, 142(1), 144, 271(1)F, 271(1) b, 271 (1) c
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 03.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 01.08.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(A) Mumbai, for the A.Y 2012-13.
None appeared on behalf of assessee nor any application for seeking adjournment was filed when the case was called repeatedly. On going through the case file, 2 Vazholi Imbichi Moidy Punathil, Mumbai. we notice that on the previous occasions also assessee was informed telephonically on 15.01.2025 regarding this date but till none appeared on behalf of assessee nor his representative appeared, the only ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions made u/s 68 of the Act. On the contrary 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.
After hearing Ld. Ld.DR and perusal of record, I noticed that assessee made cash transactions amounting to Rs. 16,10,000/- in the savings bank account during the year under consideration and the source of which remained unexplained as the assessee was ex-parte before the AO. Even during the appellate proceedings Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said additions by passing a detailed order which is contained in para 6.3 to 6.6 and the same is reproduced herein below:
6.3 Grounds of appeal no. 3: Vide this ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 1610000 made by AO on account of the unexplained cash deposit made in the bank account. The appellant has stated that AO has erred in making addition of Rs. 1610000 out of cash deposit made into his saving bank account which has been received from his family members for his child marriage in his native place. 6.4 I have duly considered the facts of the case, ground of appeal, findings of the AO contained in his assessment order, remand report received from the AO and reply of the appellant
3. Vazholi Imbichi Moidy Punathil, Mumbai. filed during appellate proceedings. From the perusal of assessment order, it is seen that appellant had made cash deposit into his saving bank account amounting to Rs. 1610000 during the FY 2011-12. Based on this credible information with regard to cash deposit, the AO re-opened the case u/s 147 of the I.T Act by duly following the procedure laid out in the Act/Rules. It is seen that, despite issuing notice u/s 148 there was no response from the appellant during the assessment proceedings. Further it is also seen that subsequent to that AO had issued notice u/s 142(1) and issued show-cause notice on 14.11.2019 seeking return of income in compliance to notice u/s 148 and also seeking explanation with regard to source of cash deposit amount to Rs. 1610000 in his saving bank account. Further, it is seen that AO had issued the notice on the address given in the bank account of the appellant to ensure that notice and communication is properly reach to the appellant. Still no reply and response was made by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. In view of the above facts the AO invoked Section 144 for completing the assessment. Accordingly, the AO has made addition of Rs. 1610000 as unexplained cash u/s 68 in the absence of any reply/explanation from the appellant.
6.5 The appellant has opposed the findings of the AO with regard to addition of Rs. 1610000 made u/s 68 as unexplained cash deposit in the bank account in his written submission filed during the appellate proceedings. The appellant has submitted that due to some unavoidable reasons and Covid he could not file reply during assessment proceedings therefore, one more opportunity should be given during appellate proceedings. The appellant has further submitted that the cash deposited in the bank account is out of fund received from the family members for marriage of his child at his native place. Considering the above request, the submission was forwarded to the AO for his comments and AO was also directed to conduct enquiry to verify the source of cash deposited in the bank account. The appellant has submitted that these money deposited in the bank account does not belong to him but it belongs to family members who are staying in Kerala.
4 Vazholi Imbichi Moidy Punathil, Mumbai.
6.6. From the proper appreciation and evaluation of the findings of the AO with regard to addition of Rs. 1610000 u/s 68 of the I.T Act and reply/submission of the appellant filed during appellate proceedings and Remand Report received from the AO, it is seen that due to failure on the part of the appellant to furnish any explanation/reply of cash deposit in his bank account during assessment proceedings, the AO had invoked Section 144 of 1.T Act and made addition as unexplained cash u/s 68 of the I.T Act. However, the appellant has explained that cash deposited in the bank account does not belong to him but this was received from his family members from the Kerala. This office sent the submission of the appellant for examination and verification to the AO in the remand proceedings. The AO has submitted his Remand Report dated 01.05.2024 which is appearing in the paragraph 5 above. From the Remand Report, it is seen that the appellant has once again not cooperated and filed any reply to substantiate his claim of cash belonging to his family members. The AO has reported that during remand proceedings appellant has not appeared and neither furnished any documentary evidence which proves that cash belongs to his family members The AO has reported that appellant has failed to explain the source of cash deposit in the bank account with any substantial documentary evidence therefore explanation of the appellant cannot be accepted. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case it is held that appellant has failed to explain the source of cash deposit in the bank account. Accordingly, the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 1610000 u/s 68 is hereby confirmed. Therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed.
6.7 Ground of appeal nos, 4 & 5: Vide these grounds of appeal, the appellant has challenged the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)F 271(1) b and u s 271 (1) c and levy of interest. It is pertinent to note that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct proceedings from the assessment proceedings therefore it is premature to make any adjudication at this stage. Similarly, levy of interest is consequential in nature therefore AO is directed to charge the interest as per law on the assessed income.
5 Vazholi Imbichi Moidy Punathil, Mumbai.
After evaluating the facts of the case and the orders passed by the revenue authorities, I found that assessee had fail to furnish any explanation with regard to cash deposits in his bank account during the assessment proceedings. Although assessee has tried to explain the source of cash deposits but Ld. CIT(A) after seeking verification through the remand proceedings had also noticed that assessee again did not cooperated and failed to explain the source of cash even during remand proceedings therefore confirmed the said addition.
Now before us, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any written submission or documentary evidences to controvert or rebut the lawful findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore we find no reasons to interfere into or to deviate from the well reasoned findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee stands dismissed.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.