JAGESH KUMAR,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9638/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 November 2021AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the detailed reasons provided for sustaining the addition. The assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on AIR information regarding a cash deposit of Rs. 23,76,710/-. The assessee did not file a return or respond to notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, and the assessee appealed.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment and additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) are sustainable given the assessee's non-appearance and lack of response.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC-2’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA

Hearing: 30.11.2021Pronounced: 30.11.2021

ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 14.10.2019 of the learned CIT(A), Faridabad, relating to Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

This case was getting adjourned from time to time due to non-appearance of the assessee. The notice sent by the Registry through RPAD fixing the date of hearing on 30.11.2021 was returned un-served by the postal authority with the remark “incomplete address”. The assessee has also not taken any steps to intimate the change of address, if any.

Therefore, I deem it proper to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the ld. DR.

3.

Although, a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the various additions made by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 144/147 of the Act.

4.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. On the basis of AIR information that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.23,76,710/- in his saving bank account maintained with HDFC Bank Ltd. Faridabad, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment after recording the reasons as per provisions of section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, taking approval from the competent authority, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2017. In response to the same, the assessee did not file any return of income. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act on different dates as per address available on record, calling for relevant information. However, there was no response from the side of the assessee. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment on the basis of material available on record and as per provision of section 144/147 of the Act determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.23,76,710/-.

5. Since, the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) in the ex-parte order passed by him upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:-

5.

Therefore, in view of all the facts and circumstances of the case and non cooperative attitude of the assessee, amount of Rs. 23,76,710/- is treated as the amount deposited in his bank account out of undisclosed sources as the assessee has failed to furnish any plausible explanation regarding the credit and debit entries of the bank accounts maintained by him. It was obligatory on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the facts in the income tax return. But the assessee has failed to do so. It is, thus, ample clear from the attitude of the assessee that the assessee has willfully and intentionally concealed the income of Rs. 23,76,710/-. In view of these facts, I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income of Rs. 23,76,710/- and therefore., penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)( c) of the Act is hereby initiated by issuing penalty notice u/s 274 read with section 271(1)( c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 separately. (Addition of Rs.23,76,710/-) 6. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

7.

I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-appearance of the assessee before the Assessing Officer, he made addition of Rs.23,76,710/- to the total income of the assessee. I find the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee due to non-appearance. However, he has decided the appeal on merit, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue who has passed a very detailed order giving justifiable reasons while sustaining the addition. I, therefore, uphold the same and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

The Order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on 30.11.2021.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →