KULDEEP,HAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(4), HAPUR

PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.2963/Del/2023 for AY 2009-10, arises out of the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 22.08.2023 against the order of assessment passed u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 06.12.2016 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-3(4), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of several notices to the assessee. Hence we proceed to dispose of this appeal on hearing the Learned DR and based on materials available on record. 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made in the sum of Kuldeep Rs 61,70,000/- on account of cash deposits made in the bank account in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. We have heard the Learned DR and perused the materials available on record. The Learned AO was in receipt of AIR information that assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 61,70,000 in Indian Bank Savings Bank account during the year under consideration. Verification letters were issued to the assessee on 23-04-2012, 14-11-2013, 5-5-2015 and 15-2- 2016 seeking explanation together with sources for deposit of cash in the bank account. The said notices were not responded by the assessee. Accordingly, the Learned AO proceeded to reopen the case of the assessee under Section 147 of the Act after recording reasons and after taking necessary approval from the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad under Section 151 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act stood issued to the assessee on 26-03-2016 which was duly served upon the assessee through speed post. The assessee had not filed his return of income originally. The assessee did not file any return of income in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. The assessee merely stated during the course of reassessment proceedings that cash was deposited out of sale proceeds of agricultural land but did not provide any documentary evidence in support of his contentions. Accordingly, the Learned AO proceeded to ignore the contentions of the assessee and added the sum of Rs. 61,70,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits and completed the assessment under Section 144 r.w. Section 147 of the Act on 6-12-2016. 5. The assessee filed a written submission before the Learned CIT(A) together with additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The said written submission is reproduced in pages 4 and 5 of the order of the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) also called for a Kuldeep remand report from the Learned AO. The Learned AO submitted the remand report on 19-2-2018 wherein the Learned AO objected to the admission of additional evidences as sufficient opportunities were given by him to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings itself and none of the notices were responded by the assessee. The Learned AO gave one more remand report on 7-3-2018 before the Learned CIT(A) stating that the sub-