Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC-1” : DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA
Date of Hearing : 18.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 24.11.2021 ORDER
This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 24.10.2019 of the Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak, relating to the A.Y. 2010-2011.
Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all are relating to the ex- parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal filed
2 ITA.No.8894/Del./2019 Shri Rajbir Singh, Jhajjar. by the assessee and upholding the addition of Rs.12,20,000/- made by the A.O. in the order passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing nor any petition seeking adjournment of the case has been filed. A perusal of the order sheet entries shows that this appeal has been fixed for hearing on a number of times and on every occasion the Postal Authorities have returned the notices sent through RPAD with the remarks “Left”. The assessee has also not taken any steps to intimate the changed address, if any. Therefore, I deem it proper to decide the appeal on the basis of the material available on record and after hearing the Ld. D.R.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and is a non-filer of the income tax return. In this case AIR information was received that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.12,22,000/- in his savings bank A/c maintained with Axis Bank, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar. The A.O, therefore, reopened the case under section 147 of the 3 ITA.No.8894/Del./2019 Shri Rajbir Singh, Jhajjar. I.T. Act, 1961 after recording reasons and notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued, which was duly served on the assessee. However, the assessee did not file any return in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequently, the A.O. issued notice under section 142(1) along with a questionnaire. Again there was no response. The A.O, therefore, issued another letter under section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which was duly served on the assessee and gave final opportunity to the assessee. Again there was no compliance. The A.O, therefore, proceeded to decide the issue on the basis of the material available on record and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.12,22,000/- in the ex- parte order passed under section 144/147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
4.1. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the validity of the re-assessment proceedings and sustained the addition of Rs.12,22,000/-.
4 ITA.No.8894/Del./2019 Shri Rajbir Singh, Jhajjar. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
I have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that despite issue of notice under section 148 and thereafter issue of notice under section 142(1) on a number of times, the assessee did not appear before the A.O, for which, the A.O. constrained to pass the ex-parte order under section 144/147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.12,22,000/- by treating the cash deposit of Rs.12,22,000/- in the S.B. A/c maintained with Axis Bank as unexplained cash deposit under section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. I find the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of the submissions made by the assessee before her, upheld the validity of re-assessment proceedings as well as the addition of Rs.12,22,000/-.
So far as the validity of the re-assessment proceedings are concerned, I find the Ld. CIT(A) has given the finding that the proceedings are initiated under section 5 ITA.No.8894/Del./2019 Shri Rajbir Singh, Jhajjar. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 after seeking approval of the Competent Authority, after recording reasons in writing as per law and by issue of notice and served on the correct address of the assessee. Relying on various decisions, the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the validity of re-assessment proceedings by passing a very speaking order. Therefore, in absence of any contrary material brought to my notice against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the validity of the re-assessment proceedings, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee regarding validity of re-assessment proceedings are dismissed.
7.1. So far as the addition of Rs.12,22,000/- is concerned, I find, here also the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a very detailed order and has given a finding that assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of the amount of cash deposited in the bank account. The assessee has not filed any details before me to take a contrary view against the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue of deposit of 6 ITA.No.8894/Del./2019 Shri Rajbir Singh, Jhajjar. cash of Rs.12,22,000/- in the bank account. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), which, in my opinion, is a very reasoned one. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld on this issue and the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 24.11.2021.