Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual and civil contractor, failed to file a return of income. The Assessing Officer noted cash deposits and TDS receipts, leading to a notice under Section 148 and subsequent additions under Section 69A for alleged business income. The appeal to the CIT(A) was also delayed but condoned.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessment is not bad in law for non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) as no return was filed. The contention regarding additions under Section 69A was rejected due to lack of supporting evidence provided by the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment is bad in law due to non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2), and whether additions made under Section 69A are justified without supporting evidence.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 142(1), 144, 69A, 139(1), 143(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish
Year: 2011-12 Mr. Anguraju Sengottuvelan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, Maruthi Vilas, North Street, Ward 1(3), High School Road, Velur, Salem. Namakkal 638 182. [PAN:AYSPS6739A] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : None ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 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 15.05.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2011-12.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 210 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.
We find no representation on behalf of the assessee or any application filed seeking adjournment. The assessee called absent and set exparte. We proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR basing on the material available on record.
The assessee raised 7 grounds of appeal among which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer on account of 2 disallowances in the facts and circumstances of the case.
At the outset, we note that the assessee is an individual and claims to be a civil contractor. According to the Assessing Officer, no return of income for the year under consideration was filed. Further, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made cash deposits of ₹.20,69,200/- in HDFC Bank, Namakkal Branch and also as per TDS statement, the assessee has received ₹.1,59,893/- from the ETA Engineering Private Limited. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], but no compliance was made by the assessee in filing the return of income. Further, notice under section 142(1) of the Act, show-cause notice and draft assessment order under section 144 of the Act were also issued and served on the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, there was no compliance from the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added an amount of ₹.28,49,200/- under section 69A of the Act and an amount of ₹.1,59,893/- on account of income from business.
Having aggrieved by the said order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 751 days. The ld. CIT(A), considering the Covid lockdown, condoned the delay and proceeded to dispose the appeal on merits. The ld. CIT(A) issued 4 notices to the assessee, which are reflecting at page 4 of the impugned order and there was no response from the assessee. The ld. CIT(A), by following many decisions of Hon’ble High Court, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee raised a specific ground stating that the assessment is bad in law for non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. We find no evidence brought on record to show that the no notice is issued under section 143(2) of the Act in support of the contention of the assessee. When the assessee has not filed his return of income within the meaning of section 139(1) of the Act, notice under section 143(2) of the Act cannot be issued to him and also scrutiny assessment cannot be done. Therefore, the contention of the assessee regarding the assessment is bad in law is rejected.
Further, it was contended that the assessee has cash balance of ₹.12,15,000/- as on 31.03.2010 is also not supported by any evidence before the Assessing Officer or the ld. CIT(A) or even before this Tribunal. The assessee also raised a contention that the addition made under section 69A of the Act is bad in law taking into consideration the cash deposits were realized from sundry debtors from earlier years. We note that the assessee did not utilize opportunities afforded by the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) in furnishing valid documentary evidences in support of his claim. Therefore, the contention of making addition under section 69A of the Act is rejected. As discussed above, the assessee raised same ground before the ld. CIT(A) as is evident from Form 35 and no supporting evidence filed.
We find the assessee reiterated the same ground before the Tribunal without there being any documentary evidence. Therefore, we find no alternative except to confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee fails and are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 25th April, 2025 at Chennai.