Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed returns for AY 2012-13 and AY 2017-18. The cases were reopened under Section 147 and additions were made under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts operated by the assessee's employee. The assessee failed to cooperate with the assessment and appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the additions were based on the assessee's own statement during survey and cash deposits during demonetization. Despite the assessee's claim of ill health, the consistent non-compliance with notices at various stages demonstrated a lack of cooperation.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits are justified given the assessee's non-cooperation and claims of ill health, and whether the appeals should be remitted to the AO.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 148, 142(1), 271(1)(b), 69A, 131, 133(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President 1.
is filed by Sri Bangalore Venkatappa Ravikumar (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2012-13 against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(A)] dated 31.1.2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by the ACIT, Circle 6(3)(1), Bangalore [ the Ld. AO] , was dismissed.
AY 2017-18 against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC on 29.1.2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 4.11.2019 was dismissed.
We first take up the appeal for AY 2012-13. The facts show that assessee filed return of income on 15.3.2013 at a total income of Rs.77,08,910 having income from house property and other sources. The case was reopened u/s. 147 by issue of notice u/s. 148 dated 27.3.2019 after the prior approval of the PCIT, Bangalore. The assessee replied on 13.5.2019 reiterating the original return. The reasons were provided to the assessee on 28.5.2019 which was objected to by the assessee on 18.6.2019 and the objections were disposed of on 16.8.2019. Subsequently notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 31.8.2019. Further a notice u/s. 142(1) was also issued to the assessee. The penalty notice was also issued u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act which was not responded to and therefore assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) at the total income of Rs.1,51,93,220 wherein addition of Rs.76,20,000 was made.
Facts relating to this additions is that it was found that during the course of survey the employee of the assessee was operating the SB A/c at the behest of the assessee and his wife at Janatha Seva Co-op. Bank. When the assessee and his wife were confronted, they stated that Bank A/c was operated by their employee. However when the statement of the employee was recorded, he submitted that all the transactions in that Bank A/c are at the instruction of the assessee. With respect to the cash deposit of Rs.76,20,000 in that Bank A/c, the assessee submitted that same is out of cash withdrawals from his and his wife’s Bank A/c. The ld. AO examined the claim of the assessee and held that statement of affairs submitted by the assessee as at 31.3.2013 does not show any bank account nor any advance given to the employee. Accordingly he made addition of Rs.76,20,000 u/s. 69A in the hands of assessee.
The assessee aggrieved with the same preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee objected to the reopening of the assessment stating that reopening has been made on the basis of borrowed satisfaction as information obtained from JCIT, Range 3(2) was utilised for reopening. The ld. CIT(A) categorically rejected the same for the reason that the reopening was made on the basis of assessee’s own statement u/s. 131 of the Act wherein he categorically admitted that his employee,
Mr. Boregowda maintained the bank A/c in Janatha Seva Co-op. Bank and deposited cash of Rs.76,20,000. Thus reopening was held to be based on tangible material on record and not borrowed satisfaction. The ld. CIT(A) further supported his decision based on various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
With respect to the other grounds of appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held that during the appellate proceedings assessee has not uploaded even a single document to corroborate the grounds of appeal, hence same were dismissed. Similarly addition was confirmed on the merits also.
The ld. CIT(A) further noted that as assessee is non-compliant to several notices issued for hearing and therefore recording the 5 dates of notice in para 4, he was also of the view that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. The appeal should have been dismissed in limine. Thus the order of the ld. CIT(A) was passed due to non-cooperation of the assessee confirming the addition made by the AO. The assessee has filed appeal against the same.
AY 2017-18 is also on account of cash deposit of Rs.35,10,000 in the Bank A/c of assessee. The facts show that assessee filed return of income on 29.3.2018 at a total income of Rs.1,28,24,750. The return was picked up for scrutiny and other notices were issued to the assessee, but assessee remained non-cooperative. A notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act was issued to the Janatha Seva Co-op. Bank asking about the cash deposit in the Bank A/c No.xx5928. Response was received and it was found that a sum of Rs.35,10,000 of cash was deposited in the Bank A/c of assessee during the demonetisation period. As the assessee is non- cooperative and did not comply with any of the notices, assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 4.4.2019 making addition of above sum u/s. 69A of the Act.
The assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who passed the order on 29.1.2025 confirming the addition because on 6 occasions, the notices were issued
to the assessee, but assessee did not respond to. The Appellate order was on the merits as well as holding that assessee does not want to prosecute the appeal.
For both the appeals, the ld. AR submitted that the orders passed by the ld. lower authorities are ex parte orders. The assessee could not explain before the ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT(A). It was the claim of the assessee that during this period assessee was not keeping well and was suffering from disease and was under medication. Due to the distress and ill health, assessee was not in a position to submit the details and therefore it resulted in ex parte orders for both the above years at the assessment stage and the appellate stage. He stated that if an opportunity is granted to the assessee, requisite details may be submitted before the ld. lower authorities and the correct income of the assessee can be assessed.
The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. lower authorities and submitted that when the assessee does not appear before the AO as well as the CIT(A) despite subjected to survey, it clearly shows the non-cooperative attitude and no relief should be granted to the assessee at this stage.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. We find that for both the above years, the addition is made in the hands of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act. For the first AY, addition is made on the basis of statement u/s. 131 of the Act during the course of survey wherein the assessee accepted that the amount of cash deposit in the Bank A/c by the employee is at his instruction. Further in the 2nd year, the amount is deposited during the demonetization period in the SB A/c of the assessee. The assessee remained unrepresented in both the cases at the assessment sage as well as appellate stage. Before the AO the assessee was provided may opportunities and before the ld. CIT(A) also assessee was provide atleast 5 opportunities for each of the assessment years. Though it is possible that assessee may not be well, however, non- compliance by the assessee at the stage of assessment as well as at the stage of appellate authority clearly demonstrate the non-cooperative attitude of the assessee.
In view of the above facts, assessee is directed to deposit costs of Rs.2,500/- [Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only] for each year to be deposited in Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund [PMNRF] within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Looking at the facts and circumstance of the case, we remit both the appeals back to the file of the ld. AO as assessee has not complied with the notices during assessment proceedings. Remitting the issue before the ld. CIT (A) will not result in to proper assessment without asking for remand report from the ld. AO. Thereafter, assessee is directed to submit details before the jurisdictional AO within 90 days from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter the ld. AO may examine the claim of the assessee and after giving opportunity of hearing, to decide the issue of taxability of Rs.72,60,000 and Rs.35,10,000 for the respective assessment years afresh.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed for statistical purposes as directed above. Pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day of July, 2025.