RADHELAL,LUCKNOW vs. AO,FNAC, LUCKNOW

On merits of the addition, the learned CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the assessee had failed to substantiate the claim, and the aforesaid addition of Rs.1,82,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the learned CIT(A). The relevant portion of the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is reproduced as under:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A). At the time of hearing before us, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee could not make compliance with the various notices issued during the proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A), however, she submitted, the assessee was willing to furnish all details and explanations and for this purpose she requested to restore the disputed addition to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo order. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative strongly opposed the submissions made by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee. The learned Sr. D.R. for Revenue submitted that the numerous opportunities were given by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings and by the learned CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings. He also submitted that the assessee failed to make compliance before the Assessing Officer and before the learned CIT(A) despite numerous opportunities which proved that the assessee wanted to avoid participation in statutory proceedings and also wanted to evade proper inquiries through non cooperation. He also drew our attention to various opportunities given by the Assessing Officer and by the learned CIT(A). This has already been referred to in foregoing paragraphs of this order. The learned D.R. for Revenue also contended that the malafide intention of the assessee to avoid participation and co-operation in statutory proceedings for proper inquiry, is evidenced by this fact that the assessee had not filed return of income u/s 139 of the Act, and the assessee only filed return in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act read with section 147 of the Act. In view of this, the learned D.R. submitted that the assessee does not deserve another opportunity and that the assessee’s appeal should be dismissed.

We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that during the assessment proceedings and during the appellate proceedings in the office of the learned CIT(A), the assessee has not ensured full compliance to establish the genuineness of cash deposits made in the bank account. Further we also find that even during the appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee has not filed any evidence or materials establishing the genuineness of cash deposits made in the bank account. No persuasive material has been brought for our consideration to require any interference with impugned order of learned CIT(A). The Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A) have passed speaking orders in the light of facts and circumstances of this case. We are persuaded by the emphatic submissions made by the learned D.R., considering overall facts and circumstances of the present case before us in this appeal, to confirm the aforesaid addition of Rs.1,82,50,000/- and to sustain the impugned appellate order dated 18/07/2024 of learned CIT(A) without any interference considering the reasons stated therein and considering the foregoing discussions. In view of the above, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.