BOOPALAN MANJULA,DHARMAPURI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, HOSUR

(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2011-2012 ) Boopalan Manjula, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of 2/1, Angagurusamy Chetty Street, Income Tax, Dharmapuri 636 701. Circle 1, Hosur [PAN: BGGPM 5188J] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCA. (Virtual) ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055735152(1) dated 05.09.2023. The assessment was framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Hosur for the assessment year 2011-12 u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 25.11.2019.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, deposited cash in bank accounts during the F.Y. 2010-11 relating to A.Y. 2011-12, but no return of income was filed. The case was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act and notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act on 27.03.2018 and served on 05.04.2018. Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) was also issued calling for details. The assessee filed the return on 13.04.2019 declaring an income of Rs 1,97,137/-. However, the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 was much beyond the time specified in the notice u/s 148 and therefore the AO treated the return filed as non-est. Also, except filing the belated return in response to the re-opening notice, the assessee did not respond to any other notices. The AO therefore proceeded to complete the assessment order u/s 144 and brought to tax a sum of Rs.1,22,67,668/- which included bank deposits of Rs.77,67,668/- and unexplained receipts of Rs 45,00,000/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) issued notices to produce all relevant submissions in support of the claims made in the grounds of appeal. However, assessee did not respond, hence, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-parte on the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.

3. Before us, the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the AO and ld.CIT(A) has not given proper notices as per section 282 of the Act, hence assessee failed to file evidence and documents to substantiate his explanation regarding bank deposits and unexplained receipts. The ld.DR stated that the assessee is habitual defaulter in appearing before the appellate authority hence no lenient view is to be taken in this case and prayed for dismissal of appeal.