Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, filed an ITR for AY 2017-18 declaring ₹8,09,930/-. The case was selected for scrutiny due to large credit card payments. The Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹4,60,217/- under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits/credit card payments, also noting a wrongly claimed deduction under Section 80EE. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition as the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was filed with a 248-day delay, which was condoned, but the assessee failed to appear for the hearing, leading to an ex-parte proceeding.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee consistently failed to provide any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim before both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the addition confirmed by the CIT(A), finding no alternative given the lack of evidence. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for unexplained cash deposits/credit card payments when the assessee failed to furnish any supporting evidence.
Sections Cited
69A, 143(2), 142(1), 129, 133(6), 80EE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha
Year: 2017-18 Chengalvarayan Banuprakash, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 35, 2nd Floor, 2C, Royal Non Corporate Ward 17(6), Enclave, Annai Indira Nagar, Okkyam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Chennai 600 097. [PAN:AJKPB3125C] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : None ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 05.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the Addl./JCIT(A), Thane for the assessment year 2017-18.
We note that this appeal was filed on 03.02.2025 and after scrutiny; the Registry fixed the appeal for hearing on 28.04.2025. Accordingly, a notice dated 21.03.2025 issued to the assessee by RPAD intimating the said date of hearing along with a defect memo. We note that the assessee rectified the defect notified by the Registry. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, at the written request of the authorized representative of the assessee, the hearing is adjourned to 05.05.2025 and informed both parties. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 05.05.2025, we find no representation on behalf of the assessee or any application filed seeking adjournment. Thus, the assessee called absent and set exparte. We proceed to decide the appeals on merits after hearing the ld. DR and basing on the material available on record.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 248 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
The assessee raised 4 grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].
Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 25.08.2017 declaring total income of ₹.8,09,930/-. The case was selected for scrutiny by CASS for verification of large cash payments made for credit card purchases. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 143(2) of the Act dated 16.08.2018, notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 04.07.2019 and notice under section 142(1) r.w.s. 129 of the Act dated 01.10.2019. The Assessing Officer also issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act and obtained bank details. After verification of the details of the assessee and bank statement, the Assessing Officer found that the CASS reasons stands unexplained sufficiently based on the information submitted by the assessee and deduction under section 80EE of the Act wrongly claimed and also unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Act (credit card). Accordingly, the Assessing Officer assessed total income of the assessee at ₹.12,70,147/-, inter alia, making addition of ₹.4,60,217/-. On appeal, the assessee failed to comply with various hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) and also not filed any documentary evidence in support of his written submission except reiterating the facts mentioned in the statement of facts and grounds of appeal. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Before the Tribunal also, the assessee could not file any documentary evidence in support of his claim except reiterating the facts mentioned in the statement of facts and grounds of appeal as made before the ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee could not furnish any written submission or documentary evidence to substantiate his claim, we find no alternative, but to sustain the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 29th May, 2025 at Chennai.