ALPESH SURESHBHAI PATEL,SADHLI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VADODARA, VADODARA

ITA No: 1290/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Alpesh Sureshbhai The ACIT Patel Circle-3(1), Opp Bus Stand, Vs Vadodara AT & Post-Sadhli, Tal. Sinor, Vadodara-391250, Gujarat (Respondent) PAN: AOHPP8544F (Appellant) Assessee Represented: None Revenue Represented: Shri Abhijit, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 15-09-2025 Date of pronouncement : 30-09-2025 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Alpesh Sureshhbhai Patel, did not file a return of income for A.Y. 2012-13. As per the AIR information available with the Department, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 59,07,020/- in his bank account with State Bank of India during the financial year 2011-12. On the basis of this information, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. Despite service of notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee did not file any return of income nor did he furnish any explanation regarding the source of the cash deposits. In the absence of compliance on part of the assessee, the Assessing Officer treated the entire cash deposits of Rs. 59,07,020/- as unexplained income under section 69A of the Act.

4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In the statement of facts, the assessee submitted that he was engaged in the business of commission agency for Vodafone SIM cards and recharge coupons and that the cash deposits was from his business receipts. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking section 144 of the Act and treating the entire cash deposits as unexplained, since the deposits were attributable to business activity and only the net profit element could have been brought to tax. However, Ld. CIT(A) noted that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee responded only once on 07.08.2023 to the notices issued and did not file any further submissions or evidence in response to subsequent notices of hearing. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the material on record, observed that the assessee had in fact made substantial cash deposits of Rs. 59.07 lakh in his bank account and had neither filed any return of income nor any supporting documents to reconcile the deposits with his stated business activities. The claim that the deposits represented business receipts of his commission agency was not accepted by CIT(A) in the absence of any corroborative evidence such as bills, invoices, confirmations, or books of account showing such receipts from sale of SIM cards. Ld. CIT(A) held that the contention of the assessee that only net profit at 1% of turnover should be taxed was also rejected for want of any supporting material having been furnished by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) further held that since the assessee had remained non-compliant during assessment as well as appeal proceedings and had failed to substantiate his claim with evidence, he held that the Assessing Officer was justified in treating the cash deposits of Rs. 59,07,020/- as unexplained income under section 69A of the Act. In the result, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.