Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, failed to file his return of income. Upon receiving information about bank transactions, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under section 142(1). The assessee did not file the return, but the AO obtained bank statements showing deposits of Rs. 35,05,008/-, including Rs. 28,71,000/- during demonetization. The assessee claimed these were from his mother's rental income and savings but failed to provide documentary evidence or produce his mother for examination.
Held
The Tribunal noted a consistent pattern of non-compliance by the assessee before the AO, CIT(A), and the Tribunal itself. Despite multiple opportunities and scheduled hearings, the assessee neither appeared nor authorized a representative. In the absence of any submissions, explanations, or supporting evidence from the assessee, the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 35,05,008/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act is justified, and whether the lower authorities erred in passing ex-parte orders without providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee.
Sections Cited
139(1), 142(1), 133(6), 69A, 144, 282, 250, 234A, 234B, 234C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SM’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Mallikarjuna Rao Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1, Sanga Reddy. Brahmarauthu, Sanga Reddy. PAN:AVPPB2671L (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: None. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Ms. Aditi Goyal, SR-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 03/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Mallikarjuna Rao Brahmarauthu (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 30.11.2023 for the A.Y. 2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual who did not file any return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). On the basis of information in his possession, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) noticed certain bank transactions carried out by the assessee during the year under consideration. Accordingly, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 18.12.2017, requiring the assessee to file his return of income. However, the assessee failed to file any return of income in response to the notice. The Ld. AO obtained the bank statement of the assessee by issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Act. On perusal, it was noticed that there was a total deposit of Rs.35,05,008/- in the bank account during the year, which included cash deposits of Rs.28,71,000/- during the demonetisation period (09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016). On 05.11.2019, the assessee appeared before the Ld. AO and explained that the cash deposits were sourced from rental income of his mother and her savings. However, when asked to substantiate this claim with documentary evidence, the assessee failed to produce any supporting proof and also did not produce his mother for examination, citing personal reasons. As the assessee neither filed a return of income nor furnished any documentary evidence to explain the deposits, the Ld. AO treated the entire deposits of Rs.35,05,008/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, The Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act vide order dated 06.11.2019 making the addition of Rs.35,05,008/- under section 69A of the Act.
4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Ld. CIT(A)”). However, the assessee failed to comply with notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), and consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The case was fixed for hearing on 14.07.2025, 19.08.2025, and again today. However, on none of these dates did the assessee appear before the Tribunal, nor was any representative authorized to appear on his behalf. There is thus a consistent pattern of non-compliance before the Ld. AO, the Ld. CIT(A), and now before this Tribunal. We therefore proceed ex-parte and adjudicate the matter after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the material available on record.
The Ld. Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted that at all three stages i.e. before the Ld. AO, before the Ld. CIT(A), and even before this Tribunal, the assessee has remained non-compliant. The assessee has not produced any explanation or supporting material regarding the additions made. The orders of the Revenue authorities, therefore, deserve to be upheld.
We have heard the contentions of Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We find that, the case was fixed for hearing on 14.07.2025, 19.08.2025, and again today. However, on none of these dates did the assessee appear before the Tribunal, nor was any representative authorized to appear on his behalf. There is thus a consistent pattern of non-compliance before the Ld. AO, the Ld. CIT(A), and now before this Tribunal. The assessee has shown complete disregard for the appellate proceedings. Despite several opportunities, the assessee has chosen not to appear or substantiate his case. In the absence of any submission, explanation, or supporting evidence produced by the assessee in support of his grounds of appeal, we are left with no option but to dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 10th Sept., 2025.